incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <>
Subject RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Date Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:11:49 GMT
It's not unfair. I deliberately tried to say i don't want to distract from the handover process.
How you would want to handle things is not necessarily the way the incoming chair wants to
handle things. By delaying the discussion until afterwards I merely want to give the incoming
chair a chance to have their input, as chair.

I don't think its productive to make someone's support or otherwise of an experiment to distract
from getting the right chair to replace you.

As for what's needed - that's simple a recommendation to the board which Iis clear an unambiguous.
We are not there yet, we don't have consensus here. I believe we don't have consensus because
we haven't tried things to provide data.

Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Roman Shaposhnik<>
Sent: ‎2/‎23/‎2015 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
<> wrote:
> We don't need consensus from the board. We need data to allow the board to evaluate properly.

That's fair, but what *exactly* do you need?

> The IPMC is tasked with providing recommendations. Personally I'm waiting for the disruption
a chair
> change brings to settle down and will then look forward to helping with some experimentation

Wow! That's kind of unfair. What disruption are you talking about?
There will be a VOTE thread
this week (now that I'm back to start it) and I haven't seen much
disruption *at all*.

Saying that pTLP is somehow blocked on this imaginary 'disruption'
thing feels really weird.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message