[occi-wg] confusion about status of link / headers
Andre Merzky
andre at merzky.net
Mon Oct 19 12:14:32 CDT 2009
For what its worth, OGF is modeled after IETF, and the IETF process
on reaching consensus should be applied.
From http://www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.2.pdf :
"The GGF intends to emulate, as appropriate, the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF, www.ietf.org) and to support and
complement the Internet Standards Process as outlined in [1]. is
therefore advantageous that the GGF structure and process closely
mirror those of the IETF. "
[1] Bradner, S., âIETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures,â
RFC 2418, September 1998. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2418.txt
Hope that helps,
Andre.
Quoting [Tim Bray] (Oct 19 2009):
>
> On 2009-10-19, at 9:21 AM, Alexis Richardson wrote:
>
> > Gary
> >
> > Thanks. That strikes me as a fairly complex process.
> >
> > Does anyone have any alternative suggestions? We need a simple model
> > for reaching consensus here, that grows the community and adoption.
>
> In practice, I've had experience with three processes; ISO, W3C/Oasis,
> and IETF process. ISO is institutional voting, with complex threshold
> rules. W3C and Oasis individual members vote. Of course, this means
> you have to define who's a member and thus gets a vote. In the W3C,
> you argue for a while and then the chair (co-chairs usually) assert
> what the consensus is. Informally consensus is considered to be the
> absence of sustained intense reasonable resistance. If you disagree
> you appeal to the Area Director, the IESG, the IAB and eventually the
> Internet Society (I may have that appeal chain out of order). I
> prefer the IETF model but all have been observed to work. -Tim
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
--
Nothing is ever easy.
More information about the occi-wg
mailing list