[occi-wg] confusion about status of link / headers
alexis.richardson at gmail.com
Mon Oct 19 11:53:03 CDT 2009
Well it sounds like at least three people, including myself, prefer
the IETF model.
Any other views?
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Alexis Richardson
> <alexis.richardson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thank-you. Quick question below...
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Tim Bray <Tim.Bray at sun.com> wrote:
>> >> 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; ...
>> > ...
>> > 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).
>> Did you mean 'IETF' for this last item?
> Yes. Note that it's also my strong preference to follow the IETF's example,
> whereby discussion focusing on the technical merits of each alternative
> would continue until rough consensus is reached (as called by the chairs)
> with an appeal chain through the OGF in the unlikely event that it is
> The key thing is to stay focused on the technical pros and cons and leave
> all the other cruft (such as unhelpful REST religious debates) at the door.
More information about the occi-wg