[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., “IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures,”
  RFC 2418, September 1998. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2418.txt

Hope that helps, 


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