Dave Crocker wrote: > > > Barry Leiba wrote: >> Dave, it's not clear whether you actually object to it, or whether >> you're just concerned that others might have a problem with it, and >> are noting that it's not standard procedure. > > I see these two points choices are compatible. > > While a complete answer would prompt us to wander into much larger > issues, let's leave it at: > > Before we declare a requirement for a conference call effort, we > should pursue attempting to resolve Issues on the list, in order to > assure both the widest possible participation and better time for > contemplation. Real-time exchanges are useful when folks largely or > completely understand issues. Because they take place over a long > time, lists are better for contemplation and for offlist (hallway) > discussion. > > Since a number of the Issues involve conceptual points, I believe > the group needs to first use the more deliberative mode of discussion. > > Please do note that I did say "widest possible participation". > Although formally open participation, and not nearly as restrictive as > a face to face meeting, a conference call does serve to limit > participation. The logistical issues unavoidably act as a filter.
Barry, I suggest we follow the process to the letter. If that means that we need to start later in January, so be it. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
