Well just one person will not be able to create rough concensus, except in a VERY small group. Saying that someone MUST be wanting to produce an inferior document because they were paid to create a product based on the spec is not fair to any participants. I claim that MANY, if not MOST IETF participants are paid one way or another based on the specifications that they are working on.
If a document has technical problems for the minority of participants (i.e. the non-rough concensus) this doesn't mean there are technical problems... That said I have not heard of anyone who is told... You will get a (large sum of money) if the draft you have written gets through the IETF without any changes. I would assume that anyone who took that as a bonus stipulation, wasn't expecting to get paid... I consider it part of my job to monitor the IETF and tell my employer what I believe the decisions are going to be, what changes might be coming, and how close to an RFC a given draft is. Bill -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 3:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DNSEXT WGLC Summary: AXFR clarify > I hope EVERYONE deeply involved in a WG documentation process has deep > DEEP conflict of interest problems. seems a bit of a stretch. it's one thing to have an interest in producing a technically sound outcome; quite another to have an interest in producing a particular outcome even when it has technical problems. Keith
