[occi-wg] confusion about status of link / headers

Alexis Richardson alexis.richardson at gmail.com
Mon Oct 19 18:43:12 CDT 2009

Sam, we want to avoid defining a consensus of one.

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:52 AM, gary mazzaferro <garymazzaferro at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Agreed, consensus and discussion is need to follow though on decisions.
>> The lack of discussion due the parties not engaging is not considered
>> consensus.
> If people choose not to participate in the discussions now then they have
> only themselves to blame when they are led by the nose by the dominant
> vendor.
> Right now I see cloud computing turning into a re-run of the last few
> decades with a single vendor controlling the standards that matter. We're in
> the best position to provide an alternative and even then I wonder if we're
> able to deliver (unfortunately some have already made up their mind on that
> subject) given there are so many agendas to align.
> In any case referring back to Tim's informal definition of consensus as the
> "absence of sustained intense reasonable resistance", silence *is*
> consensus... basically "speak now or forever hold your peace".
> If it is your intention to provide "reasonable resistance" to the current
> proposal then please do so by way of a "camera ready" alternative and a
> rationale as to why it is superior.
> Sam

More information about the occi-wg mailing list