►
Description
RFC Editor Future Development Program Meeting, 2020-09-15
A
A
The
agenda
is
exactly
what
we
announced
prior.
We
will
have
an
overview
by
each
of
the
authors
in
a
random
order.
We
will
have
elliott's
prepared
a
little
bit
of
comparison
just
to
have
you
thinking
in
in
interesting
ways.
Let's
say
and
we'll
have
a
discussion,
and
in
the
last
10
minutes
we
will
take
some
homes
and
see
if
we
have
any
consensus
or
not
we'll
see
and
then,
depending
on
that,
we'll
figure
out
what
our
next
steps
are.
B
E
B
B
E
B
F
B
B
So
that's
my
summary
of
my
draft
and,
as
I
said,
it's
it's
a
background
draft,
but
it
does
point
out
the
need
for
a
long-term
interest
outlet
and
in
to
carry
through
any
any
changes
which
we
might
decide
to
make
and
by
the
way,
I'm
not
against
changes,
particularly,
but
they
need
to
be
worked
through
carefully
and
the
other
drafts
seem
to
handle
the
question
of
consensus
on
that
pretty.
Well.
A
G
H
A
H
A
H
Slides
part
of
the
part
of
that
is,
I
don't
think,
there's
any
need
for
a
oh
thanks.
John,
there
is
a
jabber
room.
I
don't
think
there's
any
need
to
go
over
the
the
details
of
the
proposal.
There's
a
number
of
questions
that
people
have
had
with
respect
to
particularly
things
like
the
style
guide,
which
I
think
sort
of
goes
to
this
question
of
what
the
strategic
direction
needs
to
be,
as
opposed
to
the
individual
tactical
things
that
happen
on
a
day-to-day
basis.
I
believe
that
the
the
the
job
that
neville.
I
H
H
J
J
J
You've
got
an
ability
to
delegate
that,
but
you
don't
go
any
deep
into
any
more
detail
and
as
I
read
it,
we
could
end
up
with
you
delegating
right
back
to
the
ieb
who
could
then
delegate
to
an
our
sock-like
like
organization.
Could
you
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
what
you
had
in
mind
there?
Please.
H
Yeah,
I
think
this
is
a
good
question
mike.
This
is
one
area
that
I
I
I
may
have
decided
something
here
and
brian's
not
really
changed
it.
So
I'm
I'm
not
going
to
answer
for
brian
as
to
whether
or
not
this
is
his
decision,
but
but
my
thinking
here
was
that
this
was
probably
something
that
the
that
the
llc
specifically
jay
might
decide
to
assign
a
manager
for,
for
instance,
if
that
was
necessary,
I
don't
think
it's
necessary.
H
I
think
the
the
delegation
of
the
llc
is
probably
to
the
executive
director
and
that's
the
nature
of
that
delegation,
and
that's
all
that
happens,
but
I
think
that's
a
deliberately
a
matter
for
the
llc
to
to
deal
with,
and
that
was
my
my
decision.
If
we
want
to
bring
that
into
scope
for
this
discussion,
I
think
it's
well
within
our
charter
to
do
that,
but
I
I
didn't
think
it
was
worth
belaboring
that
point.
J
Yeah
and
the
reason
I
asked
it
because
I
was
very
specific
about
making
sure
that
it
was
delegated
to
a
fiduciary
of
the
llc,
basically
a
j
or
somebody
like
aj
who's
under
contract
or
or
related
to
them,
as
opposed
to
a
general
delegation
to
a
person
or
group
as
you
as
you
quoted
there.
So
I
just
want
to.
H
C
C
J
A
J
A
C
L
E
L
Pretty
sure
there's
only
two
slides
and
a
lot
of
my
material
was
copied
from
from
martin's
draft
anyway
and
by
the
way
I
do
agree
with
his
answer
on
the
previous
question
about
the
llc,
possibly
delegating
within
its
own
power.
If
you
like,
the
main
difference
in
what
I'm
proposing
is
that
the
working
group
that's
set
up
should
be
very
clearly
labeled
as
advisory,
rather
than
whatever
it
was
called
in
his
draft.
L
L
I
believe
editorial
authority
is
not
an
issue.
It's
per
stream.
We've
seen
that
consensus
on
that,
and
I
want
to
be
clear
that
the
management
of
the
contract
side
of
things,
the
objectives,
the
targets,
all
that
stuff
is
part
of
the
llc's
job.
I
don't
think
we
should
extract
it
from
the
llc's
line
of
command
if
you
can
move
down
to
the
second
slide.
L
L
L
Okay,
thanks
so
come
on
slide.
Two.
Here's
a
little
bit
more
about
the
advisor
a
senior
professional,
deep
knowledge
of
technical
publishing.
We've
seen
that
before
provides
expert
advice
to
the
working
group
and
to
the
production
team,
because
I
can't
imagine
the
production
team
not
leading
that
kind
of
advice.
From
time
to
time,
the
person
would
be
expected
to
act
as
a
thought
leader.
You
know
we
don't
formalize
that
in
the
ietf,
but
it's
pretty
clear
that
we
do
have
people
who
function
as
thought.
L
L
You
know
there
might
have
to
be
a
selection
committee
like
there
was
for
the
old
rsc
role,
but
basically
I'm
trying
to
rework
martin's
model
to
include
the
role
of
this
advisor,
because
I
think
we
need
such
a
person
and
I'm
trying
to
make
sure
that
person
is
not
stuck
in
part
of
a
matrix
management
model,
which
is
one
of
the
things
I
think
we
had
going
wrong
before.
So
that's
it.
M
So
this
is
lucy,
and
I
have
a
question
for
clarification
here-
that
sort
of
rolls
up
neville's
advice
on
long-time
strategy
and
martin's
draft
and
your
draft
I'm
concerned
about
where
consensus
happens
across
the
streams
and
the
format.
Work
is
a
good
example
of
that,
and
I
want
to
know
where,
in
this
model,
this
senior
advisor
gets
authority
other
than
being
the
editorial
manager
of
the
editorial
stream.
L
The
my
answer
is
that
this
is
why
there
are
chairs
for
the
the
advisory
working
group
and
they
determine
consensus
according
to
atf
time
rules,
and
that's
why
I
want
to
link
back
to
isoc
as
a
supreme
authority
when
there
is
dispute,
but
I
think
that's
the
chain
of
authority.
The
working
group
cares
and
then
whoever
you
know
is
the
final
court
of
appeal
for
those
working
group
cares.
So
I
specifically
the
advisor
is
helping
to
form
consensus
but
does
not
determine
the
consensus.
That's
my
answer.
H
H
So
I
I
think
I
agree
with
with
brian,
to
the
extent
that
it's
a
working
group
process
and-
and
we
have-
we
haven't
understood
process
for
that.
You
said
one
thing
that
I
will
take
a
little
bit
of
exception
to
I
I
don't
know
if
brian
caught
this
or
not,
but
you
said
how
does
this
advisor
gain
authority?
And
I
think
the
the
point
here
is
that
there's
there's
no
strong
authority
invested
in
this
individual
brian's
suggesting
an
advisor
here
and
I'm
I
would.
H
H
L
L
M
A
A
J
Okay,
okay,
so
my
model
is,
is
actually
sort
of
similar
to
what
we've
currently
got
right.
Now
we
have
an
expert,
that's
hired
on
a
long
term
basis
to
provide
knowledge
that
we
don't
normally
have
call
it.
The
rrc
call
it
the
advisor,
whatever
the
the
actual
title
versus
the
roles
are
going
to
be
defined
in
whatever
contracts
we
end
up
putting
together.
J
This
is
a
rfc
series,
editorial
board
model
where
the
stakeholder,
the
direct
stakeholders
for
the
series,
are
the
primary
inputs
to
how
the
series
is
done,
and
that
is
the
stream
managers
for
the
iab,
the
independent
stream
manager
and
the
other
stream
managers
plus
three
at
large
members,
including
one
from
isoc.
If
we
can
get
them
to
go
along
with
it,.
J
The
llc
is
responsible
for
the
hiring
and
firing
recommendations
come
in
from
the
res
rsdb
for
how
what
they
should
do
there,
but
the
final
decisions
are
the
llc's
based
on
the
contract
on
what
the
communities
always
said
already
said,
with
respect
to
the
documents
on
how
we
want
to
do
this,
so
the
rseb
is
not
the
final
answer
here.
The
llc
is
going
to
be
looking
at
is
going
to
be
taking
a
look
at
what's
going
on
and
saying,
okay
yeah.
We
need
to
continue
or
not
with
respect
to
that.
J
Let's
see
the
operational
model
is
quite
a
bit
simpler
than
when
you
split
when
you
break
this
all
out
again
coming
from
neville's
bot
model,
we
create
a
second,
we
create
a
new
stream,
and
I
call
it
series
I
should.
I
should
be
streaming
here,
the
editorial
stream-
and
this
is
where
we
put
all
the
documents
described
in
a
meta
in
the
meta
content
of
how
the
rfc
series
is
put
together,
published,
evolves
and
things
along
those
lines.
J
This
is
this.
This
is
the
the
segment
that
I
really
wanted,
elliott
to
put
onto
the
slide
that
he's
going
to
show
next,
because
I
thought
strategic
decisions
was
was
the
wrong
way
of
thinking
about
it.
You
need
to
be
thinking
about
each
of
the
pieces
of
them,
so
the
the
concept
of
what
the
strategy
is
is
the
rrc
and
the
rcb
working
partnership
with
community
input
again,
the
stream,
the
stream
managers
are
going
to
have
the
biggest
input
with
respect
to
this,
because
they're,
the
ones
that
are
trying
to
get
documents
published.
J
J
A
C
All
right,
so
this
is
elliot's
informal
comparison
and
it's
necessarily
incomplete.
Why
is
it
necessarily
incomplete
because
more
people
went
to
great
lengths
to
write
down
their
thoughts
in
far
more
detail
than
anyone
can
fit
on
one
slide
so,
but
this
is
just
a
little
bit
about.
You
know
how
you
might
organize
your
thinking,
and
you
may
completely
disagree
with
any
of
the
rows,
columns
or
content
that
that
you
see
here.
It's
just
my
view
of
things
and
and
if
you
agree,
that's
great
that
this
is
the
view.
C
I
spotted
and
or
at
least
I
think,
are
close
to
correct
the
rpc
function
under
neville's
and
and
mike's
proposals.
Our
boat
is
is,
is
pretty
much,
as
is
they're,
not
they're,
pretty
much
being
asked
to
do
much
the
same
as
what
they're
doing,
at
least
so
far
as
I
could
tell,
and
of
course
after
I'm
finished,
please
feel
free
to
correct
anything
that
you
think
you
got
wrong
under
brian's
and
martin's
proposals.
C
C
It's
pretty
pretty
much
the
rpc
plus
maybe
a
little
bit
more
structure.
If
I
understand,
but
it's
pretty
much
it
it's
roughly
speaking,
the
rpc
under
the
rsc
function
the
rsc
function.
The
rsc
is
largely
intended
to
function
and
have
similar
responsibilities
as
as
they
have
today
under
neville's
and
mike's
proposals,
whereas
in
brian's
proposal
it
becomes
a
strictly
advisory
function,
that
reports
to
the
rfc
series
advisory
working
group
and
advises
both
the
rsawg
and
the
rep
and
then
also
under
brian's
proposal.
It's
responsibility.
C
The
rsu
is
responsible
for
documenting
consensus
under
martin's
proposal.
These
functions
are
devolved
into
the
the
open
program
which
I
list
as
a
working
group,
and
also
some
go
to
p,
but
that's
about
that
that
little
asterisk
there,
which
I'll
get
to
in
a
minute
the
strategic
decisions.
This
is
the
one
that
mike
took
issue
with,
and
this
is
unnecessarily
a
summary
of
that.
You
know.
C
C
These
decisions
happen
in
this
advisory
working
group,
and
that
is
similar
in
nature
to
what
martin
had
to
say
and
then,
of
course,
there's
this
notion
of
strategic
which
martin
drew
out,
but
in
his
presentation,
is
probably
worthy
of
additional
conversation
for
the
oversight
of
the
rsc
and
rsa.
We
have
the
llc
pretty
much
throughout,
except
for
martin,
because
he
doesn't
have
one.
C
The
selection
process
under
neville's
proposal
is
through
the
llc
and
with
mike
says,
there's
a
search
committee
which
is
drawn
from
the
rcb
and
the
llc
in
brian's
model.
You
have
the
llc
again
with
two
asterisks
and,
of
course,
with
martin,
since
he
doesn't
have
one
of
these
there.
It's
not
applicable
for
community
engagement,
so
the
community
would
engage
the
rfc
series
editorial
board
along
with
rfc
rc
interest
list
in
mike's
proposal.
C
There
would
be
rfcb
open
meetings,
solicited
input
on
documents
and
and
makes
the
point
that
there's
not
a
community
consensus
required
for
the
rfc
editor
series
documents
the
under
brian.
It's
all
about
an
open
working
group,
and
this
is
the
same
with
martin
for
oversight
and
advisory
group
construction
under
neville's
proposal.
It's
with
the
nom-com
plus
some
ex-officio
members
with
mike.
It
is
largely-
and
this
is
not
entirely
it's-
it's
largely
by
the
stream
managers
or
representatives
and
some
at
large
particip
or
at
large
I'd.
C
C
Brian
recommends
a
co-chair
selected
by
the
board
of
trustees
from
isoc,
whereas
martin
pulls
from
the
iab,
and
then
I
put
in
here
minimum
participation
just
in
case,
like
things
got
really
quiet,
who'd
actually
show
up
turns
out,
at
least
in
this
program
that
hasn't
I
looked
at
the
numbers.
There's
been
a
fair
amount
of
participation
from
the
community.
H
H
C
C
C
There
is
no
appeals
that
come
out
of
the
rseb
and
in
discussions
with
mike
and
mike,
please
correct
me:
if
I'm
misstating
this,
you
didn't
see,
you
weren't
sure
what
there
was
to
appeal
in
terms
of
that
discussion,
and
I
guess
it
depends
also
on
what
you
view
as
the
the
decision
points
in
process
and
probably
there's
a
little
bit
of
this.
This
this
line
may
be
just
a
bit
too
brief.
J
C
C
J
Yeah,
sorry
about
that,
I
thought
I'd
muted,
so
I
apologize
for
the
noise.
The
the
key
thing
here
is
is
figuring
out
what
can
be
appealed
and
and
and
over
applying
the
ietf
working
group
or
process
model
to
a
group
that
has
to
make
forward
progress
much
faster
than
normal
working
groups
do,
or
at
least
try
to
make
more
progress
than
normal
working
groups
do
suggest
that
we
leave
the.
J
C
C
H
H
H
But
I
think
the
bigger
question
that
we
need
to
address
is
the
split
between
making
a
strategic,
long-term
decisions
about
the
evolution
of
the
series
and
getting
all
of
the
day-to-day
tactical
stuff
out
of
the
way
and
the
different
approaches
that
the
different
proposals
have
taken
toward
that.
I'll
put
my
answer
to
that
one
out
there.
At
this
point,
I
think
that
the
the
folks
doing
the
editing
need
to
be
largely
responsible
for
dealing
with
the
the
tactical
day-to-day
issues.
H
Those
are
the
people
who
are
responsible
for
delivering
and
and
meeting
a
particular
performance
target
and
so
they're
in
the
best
position,
and
to
do
that.
Part
of
the
problem
that
I
think
we've
had
in
the
past
is
that
their
performance
targets
have
been
to
some
extent
dependent
on
the
performance
of
another
entity,
and
the
decision-making
process
is
around
making
those
tactical
decisions,
and
I
think
we
can
probably
do
a
lot
to
to
alleviate
that
pressure
by
changing
the
nature
of
their
contracts.
H
And
then
then
we
can
have
a
process
that
is
to
the
extent
necessary
or
to
the
extent
possible
rather
free
from
the
pressures
of
having
to
resolve
things
in
a
timely
fashion,
and
we
can
concentrate
on
strategic
issues,
which
is
why
I
think
the
working
group
process
can
can
work
for
this
one.
I
agree
with
mike
that
a
working
group
process
for
dealing
with
these
tactical
issues
would
be
kind
of
a
failure.
O
Okay,
I
have
to
disagree
with
several
of
the
assumptions
in
martin's
statements
trying
to
have
the
rpc
deal
with
the
decisions
about
how
the
series
should
function
strike
me
as
failing
on
multiple
grounds.
For
one
thing,
you
have
multiple
editors
operating
quasi-independently
who
are
currently
working
by
counting
on
being
given
consistent
direction.
O
That's
great
their
line
manager
doesn't
have
any
skill
in
this,
and
that's
fine
they've
had
heather
and
john
now
filling
the
role
to
give
them
the
consistent
direction.
They,
if
you
just
take
that
away
you're,
making
a
drastic
change
in
the
job,
including
just
telling
them
hey,
you
get
to
figure
out
how
you're
supposed
to
get
consistent
answers
from
this.
It
is
not
at
all
obvious
to
me
that
this
works
in
any
meaning
of
works
on
the
obverse
side,
in
terms
of
the
expertise
we're
going
to
need
the
expertise
on
an
ongoing
and
regular
basis.
O
It's
not
ad
hoc.
We
don't
actually
hire
our
lawyer
on
an
ad
hoc
basis
and
they
don't
participate
on
that
hoc
basis,
and
I
think
that
trying
to
expect
that
this
expertise,
this
person
would
need
any
time
they
were
participating
to
know
what
people
were
assuming
what
the
culture
was.
So
they
could
understand
the
questions
properly
and
it
just
it's
not
an
ad
hoc
activity.
O
I
think
we
need
a
persistent,
consistent
advisor,
whether
they
have
the
authority
or
not,
is
a
different
question,
but
I
don't
know
how
to
make
the
rpc
work
without
giving
that
person
the
authority
to
do
that
part
of
the
job.
Maybe
you
don't?
They
don't
have
the
authority
over
the
strategic
part,
but
over
the
non-strategic.
I
don't
want
to
say
tactical,
because
it's
more
than
just
tactical
it's
things
which
have
longer
impact
but
are
not
strategic.
I
guess
I
think
we
need
to
have
somebody
who
can
do
that.
J
A
people
who
have
signed
up
for
the
documents
schedules
works
for
more
than
a
couple
three
four
five
years.
We
really
try
and
kill
working
groups
after
a
period
of
time,
rather
than
put
them
on
life
support
for
20
years.
So
that's
for
brian.
With
respect
to
martin's.
One
programs
are
the
ieb
programs
have
tended
to
be
related
to
architectural
technology
and
and
science.
If
you
will,
this
tends
to
be
a
bit
more
operational
in
nature
and
has
more
of
a
more
of
a.
J
M
First,
I
think
there's
a
tension
here
between
itf
authors
and
their
needs
and
the
series
and
the
strategies
of
publication
and
archive
and
external
readers
outside
the
ietf
street,
and-
and
I
don't
think
those
are
easy
to
resolve-
and
these
proposals
seem
in
some
part
to
represent
the
frustrations
of
authors
and
authoring
tools
versus
long-term
record
of
consensus
and
the
series
and
the
archive
who
speaks
for
the
series
here
is
really
important
to
me.
I'm
not
an
author,
I'm
a
consumer.
M
M
N
Hi
I
had
two
two
sort
of
thoughts.
One
is
that
I
working
groups
in
the
style
of
iotf
working
groups
do
do
some
things
really
well,
but
I
don't
actually
think
they
make
strategic
decisions
very
well
at
all.
We
see
this
a
lot
in
groups
who
try
to
get
consensus
from
architecture
documents
and
many
times
you
know
the
documents
are
abandoned
and
the
working
group
is
great
at
doing
a
protocol
or
you
know
a
solution,
but
at
least
when
I
think
of
strategic,
I
I
don't
think
that
fits
into
our
group
at
all.
N
N
The
other
comment
is,
I
think,
that
history,
I
don't
think
the
iab-
should
have
any
major
role
in
this
at
all.
So
I
you
know,
I
think,
there's
a
couple
other
choices
and
we
should
go
with
those
and
we
don't
again.
I
think
the
the
iab
has
had
their
opportunity
here
and
didn't
be.
Polite.
Didn't
do
very
well.
So
thank
you.
K
One
of
the
things
that
happened
when
heather
was
the
rsc
was
that
authors
would
come
along
and
say
well,
I'd
like
to
be
able
to
do
this
or
I'd
like
to
have
to
do
that,
and
the
xml
and
the
tools
didn't
support
that,
and
a
discussion
took
place
with
effectively
heather
giving
the
yes,
no
sorry
someone's
lots
of
background
noise.
Heather
was
the
person
who
gave
the
yes
no
as
to
whether
or
not
that
was
implemented,
and
there
was
a
lot
that
heather
would.
I'm
told
understand
about
that.
K
K
K
That
is
the
triage
group
that,
when
these
requests
come
in
they're
the
ones
that
are
now
deciding
whether
or
not
that
means
that
a
change
has
to
take
place
to
the
v3
xml
or
a
change
has
to
take
place
to
one
of
the
tools
or
whether
the
working
group
author
is
told.
No,
you
can't
insert
this
within
that
within
that
within
this,
and
so
that
that
is
an
operational
role
at
the
moment.
That
is,
you
know,
a
sort
of
weekly
basis,
type
of
thing
that's
taking
place.
P
Yeah,
so
I
guess
three
points.
One
I've
heard
a
lot
about
strategy
and
how
we
have
to
have
strategy.
I'd
really
be
interested
in
understanding
what
that
is
in
a
concrete
sense.
You
know,
given
that
it
seems
to
me
that
many
of
the
working
which
we
do
set
strategy
for
the
entire
internet,
and
so
it
seems
to
be
the
same
strategy
for
like
a
bunch
of
things
on
paper,
probably
is
like
actually
a
substantially
smaller
problem,
so
I'm
not
persuaded
that
groups
can't
do
that.
P
H
D
C
O
F
C
A
Oh,
that's,
that's
exactly
right.
Our
goal
today
is
to
pick
a
starting
point.
We
can
take
pieces
from
the
other
proposals
as
as
we
proceed,
but
but
our
goal
is
our
goal,
for
this
meeting
was
to
is
is
to
see
whether
there
was
consensus
on
on
one
of
these
as
the
best
starting
point.
If
there
isn't
then
we'll
try
something
else,
but
that's
our
goal.
A
A
H
A
C
C
H
I
can
I
can
say
that
I
would
be
I'd
be
comfortable,
starting
with
brian's,
on
the
understanding
that
there
are.
I
think,
two
major
points
of
difference
that
that
we'd
have
to
work
through,
but
but
on
that
understanding
I
would
be
I'd
be
comfortable
with
you
making
this
a
call
between
what
mike
has
proposed
and
what
brian
has
proposed.
C
So
now
we're
down
to
hopefully,
and
by
the
way,
I
think,
that's
a
reasonable
approach
to
say,
because
those
are
major
issues
and
I
you
know,
I
think
we
have
to
work
towards
rough
consensus
on
on
resolving
them
now.
I
think
we're
down
to
the
to
two
under
that
without
understanding.
Does
anybody
disagree
from
that
point
of
view.
P
Yeah,
I
I
really
don't
eliminate
margin
proposal
so
quickly.
I
mean
if
we
want
to
say
that
everything
between
everything
between
mike
between
martin
and
bryan's
proposal
is
undecided
and
we're
gonna
pick
brian's
starting
point
with,
although
with
every
every
difference
marks
an
open
issue
marker
that
I
know
because
I
don't
care
is
in
the
document.
But
if
this
constitutes
having
you
know,
this
constitutes
having.
P
P
These
are
written
down,
and
so,
as
I
said,
I'd
be
perfectly
happy
to
have
brian's
with,
like
the
difference,
is
having
open
issue
markers,
so
they're
not
decided,
but
well
I'm
trying
to
avoid
the
presumption
that,
just
because
we
pick
brian's
the
starting
point
that
that
is,
those
are
those
those
that
need
to
be
changed.
My
contest
is
a
change.
M
M
M
If
I
had
to
choose
I'd,
probably
be
picking
brian's
document
at
this
point,
which
I
think
can
evolve
in
a
direction
I'm
interested
in
martin's
document.
I
think
leans
a
little
too
much
in
in
an
ietf
author
center
direction
and
I'm
happy
to
talk
about
that.
But
I
I
don't
think
you
resolve
this
by
by
putting
one
against
two.
A
A
Other
people
are
there
other
people
who
agree
with
lucy
that
that
trying
to
do
this
as
a
two
a
two
way.
What
are
we
starting
for
from
expressly
saying
the
differences
between
the
two
of
them?
If
we
go
martin,
whatever
our
martin
and
brian,
are
expressly
items
to
be
worked
on
recognizing
this
is
the
standard
itf
process.
We
can
start
with
mics
and
make,
and
it
may
end
up
a
lot
closer
to
brian's
than
where
we
started
from
that.
That's
always
going
to
be
our
process.
That
is
the
way
the
iatf
works.
A
C
Should
say,
let's
just
restate
what
the
two-way
means
it
means
and
brian
tell
me.
If
I
I
got
this
wrong
right,
it
means
we
hum
first
for
mike's
proposal
as
opposed
to
one
of
either
martin's
or
bryant's,
and
then
the
next
time
would
be.
If,
if
it's
martin
o'brien's,
then
the
next
one
would
be
which
of
those
two.
If
it's
mike's,
then
we're
done
correct.
A
Well,
that
wasn't
the
way
we,
where
it
wasn't
where
I
was
heading,
but
we
certainly
can
do
that.
The
way
I
thought
we
were
heading
was
we
we
we
do
a
simple
two-way
hum.
We
start
with
mike's
or
brian's,
and
the
assumption
with
brian's
is
the
differences
between
martin
and
brian's
are
expressly
open
items
to
be
decided
to
work
group.
If
that's.
A
E
A
F
Q
J
I
think
it's
premature-
and
I
think
you're
passing
it
on
to
me-
is
that
right,
brian,
yes,
yes,
what
I'd
rather
see
is
the
chairs
to
go
back
on
that
table
that
you
started
with
and
maybe
expand
it
a
little
bit
and
actually
we
we
got.
We
got
five
or
four
or
five
of
those
lines
that
basically
look
the
same
across
all
the
proposals.
J
So
why
don't
we
figure
out?
What's
common
between
all
of
these
things,
first
get
those
off
the
table,
and
then
we
can
go
back
and
actually
continue
with
the
discussions
on
the
items
that
are
there
rather
than
pick
one
of
these
things
as
a
winner
or
loser.
Among
things.
From
my
point
of
view,
I'm
feeling
a
little
bit
like,
like
the
guy
standing
in
front
of
the
doors
on
let's
make
a
deal
and
dealing
with
monty
hall
paradox
so.
J
A
Yes,
of
course,
we
can't,
of
course
we
always
are
gonna,
go
back
to
the
list.
We're
not
gonna
end
up
with
any
final
decision
here,
but
you're
you're,
suggesting
that-
and
you
know
we
can-
we
can
see
what
happens
on
the
list,
it's
very
hard
to
judge
consensus
on
the
list.
It
can
be
done
with
this
kind
of
group
we're
likely
to
be
at
the
next
interim
meeting
before
we
make
any
any
actual
decisions.
G
I
think
an
effort
to
identify
differences
and
but
real
differences
for
the
documents
and
get
that
recorded
would
be
worthwhile
and,
at
the
same
time,
get
record
where
they
carries
agreement
are,
but
I
think
they're
trying
to
pit
these
documents
against
each
other
and
say
then
we're
going
to
go
argue
about
where
the
the
differences
are
and
what
to
do
with
them
is
is,
is
is
a
path
toward
preempting
one
point
of
view
or
another.
I
have
serious
disagreements
with
in
some
of
the
areas
of
o'brien
martin
disagree.
J
A
C
A
P
P
Yeah,
so
I
I
do
think
that
the
this
that
I
rather
not
three
way
between
all
three
drafts,
like
I
think
we
understand
that
brian
and
martin
think
they
can
work
out
some
of
their
differences
and
leave
the
open
issues
like
I
get.
I
get
the
people
like
like
we're,
not
voting
today
like
so
like
this
is
like.
Do
we
want
to
ask
them
to
go?
Do
that
with
the
presumption
that
they
do
it
acceptably
or
take
it.
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
H
So
so
brian,
can
I
request
that
we
try
to
test
for
objections,
one
of
the
one
of
the
usual
ways
we
we
deal
with
these
things
is,
if
there's
some,
if
there's
some
hard
objection,
that
someone
has
or
some
issue
that
they
they
think
needs
to
be
resolved
with
a
particular
proposal.
We
test
for
that
as
well.
That
might
give
us
a
path.
C
A
C
A
O
O
I
therefore
I
can't
say
either
of
either
mike's
or
martin's
are
things
that
I'm
comfortable
with
as
a
starting
point
since
things
that
I
think
they
take
as
critical
bases.
I
disagree
with
I.
The
problem
I
have
is,
I
don't
have
a
good
answer
up
my
sleeve.
I
don't
know
how
to
find
an
answer
that
avoids
either
of
the
extremes
they
lay
out.
Brian's
just
ducks
the
important
questions
which
yeah
you
can
start
from
that,
but
it
doesn't
actually
help.
A
R
I
So
I
was
trying
to
think
of,
like
you
know,
concrete
ways
out
of
situations
like
this,
and
there
are
many
times
in
the
itf
where
this
has
worked
and
where
it
hasn't,
you
know
elliot's
table,
I
think,
had
a
great
summary
of
of
what
matched
I
like
the
idea
of
sort
of
expanding
upon
that
more
and
that
sort
of
got
me
to
think
along
the
lines
of
well.
We
if
we're
down
to
you,
know
two
drafts
to
possibly
merge
together.
I
Maybe
one
option
is
to
actually
merge
the
commonality
points
or
the
points
that
are
agreed
upon,
throwing
out
everything
else
and
then
saying
adopting
that
is
as
sort
of
a
base
framework
upon
which
we
need
to
add
everything
else
back
in
and
it's
essentially
creating
a
list
of
topics.
You
know
that
must
go
in.
I
You
know
before
it's
ready
to
be
done
done,
but
in
the
meantime,
if
you
could
actually
get
all
of
your
existing-
and
I
think
you
know-
there's
a
number
of
existing
consensus
items
that
have
been
worked
through
over
the
past
six
months
or
whatever
it's
been
just
getting.
Those
consensus
points
down
into
a
starting
document
and
then
building
upon
that
and
getting
maybe
a
couple
of
authors
to
contribute
equally,
maybe
brian
and
mike,
for
example,.
G
C
If
I
may
just
a
chairs
comment,
I'm
not
entirely
sure
that
it
is
possible
to
do
what
wes
suggested,
and
the
reason
is
that
the
philosophical
basis,
if
you
will
the
underpinnings
of
where
mike
started
versus
where
martin
and
brian
started,
are
quite
different,
it
might
be
possible
and
that's
something.
I
think
that
the
we
as
a
as
a
group
have
to
think
a
little
bit
about.
I
don't
want
to
just
leave
that
on
the
chairs
and
and
something
we'll
have
to
discuss
in
mail.
So
I'll
stop.
C
C
N
N
J
J
J
C
H
Differences
between
those
two
drafts
is
driven
primarily
by
that,
then
we
make
progress
going
to
do
what
was
suggested
is
nice,
but
it's
the
sort
of
busy
work
that
we
give
people
when
they
can't
decide.
So
they
can
sort
of
build
this
rapport
that
you
get
when
you
start
agreeing
with
people
and
it's
a
great
brainwashing
technique.
Basically,
and-
and
it
does
actually
help
people
build
that
thing
in
a
working
group,
but
I
don't
think
we
need
to
do
that.
H
P
P
E
A
A
A
It
would
be
good
to
and
ex
to
exit
the
meeting
with
having
accomplished
something
instead
of
spend
another
two
hours,
not
getting
anything
done,
not
getting
anything
in
terms
of
unfair
we're,
clearly
understanding
each
other
more
than
we
have
been
we're.
Having
we're
having
good
discussions,
we're
having
people,
people
know
where
people
stand
on
things,
their
questions
have
been
asked
and
answered.
We
have
made
progress,
I'm
not
not
saying
we
didn't
make
any
progress,
but
is
there
is
there
are?
A
C
A
C
C
I
I
would
like
to
see
the
proposals
wheedle
down
quite
frankly,
two
to
two
at
this
point
and
that
e
and
that
I'd
like
us
to
focus
on
the
differences
between
the
two
and
that
I
would
like
us
to
be
to
the
point
where
we're
ready
to
adopt
a
draft
within
a
month
in
order
to
get
in
order
to
move
things
forward
and
martin's
right
that
there
are
pretty
much
two
major
differences
to
be
perfectly
frank:
brian
carpenter.
I
do
not
see
you
know
a
major
difference
between
you
know.
C
I
think
it's
a
a
resolvable
problem
as
to
whether
to
the
isof
bot
or
through
the
iab
in
the
case,
in
the
differences
between
you
and
martin
mike.
I
don't
know
if
I
agree
with
you
about
with
you
and
john,
but
it
may
not
matter
too
much.
What
I'd
like
you
guys
to
do
is
just
focus
down
on
on
see,
seeing
if
you
can
look
at
this
slide.
C
N
J
One
of
the
things
that
heather
did
was
make
sure
that
this
was
not
a
one-shot
deal
with
and
and
she
did
several
separate
time
zones.
I
noticed
a
good
third
of
the
folks
who
signed
up
on
the
on
the
doodle
poll
were
not
couldn't
do
it
because
of
the
time
because
it
couldn't
do
it
because
of
the
time
zone
or
because
of
other
things
going
on.
You
may
want
to
think
about
trying
to
do
one
more
of
these
things
again.