(catching up after a few days in meetings, but it will
still take a while to read everything)
Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian,
1. Apparently you missed the extended, public exchanges about these
issues, over the last 3 years...
Here's a quick list of things that have been done. It's written in
(John's long and interesting message severely truncated)
John C Klensin wrote:
... We may need
a way to have an experimental or probationary WG: to say to
a group we don't have much confidence in this, but you are
welcome to try to run with it and prove us wrong... you get a
fixed amount of time,
Jerry,
We all want to increase throughput and quality simultaneously,
but we need to look at facts before jumping to conclusions.
It's certainly true that if the technical quality of documents coming
out of WGs was better, IESG review *and the subsequent process
to rectify the document* would be
Let me restate for clarity - ADs aren't necessarily more technically
astute than *all* the rest of us. That is, we need to be careful
that
technical input from ADs isn't automatically assigned extra
weight or
control (veto power).
There's no way to avoid that happening and still have quality
Please understand the argument that was made strongly while
RFC 3777 was in WG discussion: there is reason to believe that
a substantial fraction of the potential candidates would *not*
volunteer if they were entering a public race. It's hard to
judge the validity of that argument, but it's
On 15:39 04/05/2005, Brian E Carpenter said:
My quick answer on relevance is what it's always been - the most important
single action we ever take is chartering a new WG.
Yes. Also to make sure the WG reviewed it and consensually understood it
the same way. And that the IESG understood the
I see that many points made _may_ lead to personal controversy (not the
target). I hate rigidity and procedures but I love method. We may like it
or not, but IETF is only subject to good practices as a guidance to
imperfect members trying their best. Rules will not change that.
But we might
Bruce Lilly wrote:
(Interesting thoughts read and deleted)
...
One problem is that the IESG routinely sabotages development along
That is, I think, an inappropriate choice of word.
the Standards Track by disbanding WGs as soon as a PS is produced,
leaving nobody to do the work necessary for
I hate rigidity and procedures but I love method.
That's a very useful distinction. There are lots of practices which
we would do well to recommend, but which we should not require.
Keith
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Hi Sam (and everyone else),
At 5:38 PM -0400 4/26/05, Sam Hartman wrote:
I'd just like to say that I'm not at all sure being an AD is a full
time job. It certainly sometimes is.
I do not work for the IETF full-time. I have a demanding full-time
job, a family and other interests.
It is hard to
Please understand the argument that was made strongly while
RFC 3777 was in WG discussion: there is reason to believe that
a substantial fraction of the potential candidates would *not*
volunteer if they were entering a public race. It's hard to
judge the validity of that argument, but
Bruce Lilly wrote:
(Interesting thoughts read and deleted)
...
One problem is that the IESG routinely sabotages development along
That is, I think, an inappropriate choice of word.
the Standards Track by disbanding WGs as soon as a PS is produced,
leaving nobody to do the work necessary for
On Wed May 4 2005 11:18, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Bruce Lilly wrote:
One problem is that the IESG routinely sabotages development along
That is, I think, an inappropriate choice of word.
No offense intended, and it should not be construed as indicating volition,
but I can't immediately
John,
I was thinking about whiteboards too. I'll check with the secretariat
if smth like this would be possible.
Thanks.
--
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin
Monday, May 2, 2005, 9:30:00 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 02 May, 2005 05:43 -0700 Alex Zinin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed May 4 2005 11:18, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Bruce Lilly wrote:
One problem is that the IESG routinely sabotages development along
That is, I think, an inappropriate choice of word.
OK, s/sabotages/undermines/
___
Ietf mailing list
On Wed, 4 May 2005 10:44:06 -0700
Alex Zinin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
I was thinking about whiteboards too. I'll check with the secretariat
if smth like this would be possible.
Thanks.
There are, of course, a number of companies which make products for
group interaction. Some
At 01:10 PM 5/4/2005, Soliman, Hesham wrote:
One way to open up the process would be to allow any participant
to personally request a list of candidates from Nomcom, against
a personal non-disclosure promise. (Not my idea; this was suggested
during last week's IESG retreat.)
= If we do
Like a lot of other IESG folk, I've tried to catch up on the threads
of the past few days. Lurking at the bottom of some of them is,
I believe, a more general question to the IETF: what level of effort
should we put in as the IETF (by whatever group) in ensuring that the
specifications we
At 01:10 PM 5/4/2005, Soliman, Hesham wrote:
One way to open up the process would be to allow any participant
to personally request a list of candidates from Nomcom, against
a personal non-disclosure promise. (Not my idea; this
was suggested
during last week's IESG
So, without meaning any offense to the ADs, I suggest we lump random
participants, WG members, doc editors and ADs together when the spec is
reviewed - and ensure that all comments are published in the same forum
and given appropriate weight based on technical merit, as supported by
Brian,
But unfortunately the
IESG still receives a fair number of documents with fairly serious
technical issues and/or serious editorial issues. As long as that is true,
I really don't see how we can take away the IESG's responsibility as the
back stop for quality, especially for
Brian,
First point - I unaccountably forget to mention that we agreed on and
published an IETF Mission Statement (RFC 3935). That was a direct response
to the first root problem described in RFC 3774.
Do you believe that that document will meaningfully contribute to the IETF's
producing
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ralph Droms writes
:
So, without meaning any offense to the ADs, I suggest we lump random
participants, WG members, doc editors and ADs together when the spec is
reviewed - and ensure that all comments are published in the same forum
and given appropriate weight
Hi Brian,
Please understand the argument that was made strongly while
RFC 3777 was in WG discussion: there is reason to believe that
a substantial fraction of the potential candidates would *not*
volunteer if they were entering a public race. It's hard to
judge the validity of that argument, but
This isn't likely to succeed.
It is too straightforward, reasonable and fair.
and with my sarcasm mode turned off:
This sounds like an excellent suggestion.
It is straightforward, reasonable and fair.
why am I reminded of Harrison Bergeron ? (if you haven't read it,
google for it)
or
At 20:53 04/05/2005, Ted Hardie wrote:
As an example: if a document out of one
working group was asked to create a registry for something, should a
document from a different working group using the same underlying
technology also create a registry?
This question is currently important to me too.
Brian Jari,
Please understand the argument that was made strongly while
RFC 3777 was in WG discussion: there is reason to believe that
a substantial fraction of the potential candidates would *not*
volunteer if they were entering a public race. It's hard to
judge the validity of that
The charter of the IPv6 Operations (v6ops) working group in the Operations and
Management Area of the IETF has been updated. For additional information,
please contact the Area Directors or the working group Chairs.
+++
IPv6 Operations (v6ops)
=
Current Status: Active
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document:
- 'The W3C Speech Interface Framework Media Types: application/voicexml+xml,
application/ssml+xml, application/srgs, application/srgs+xml,
application/ccxml+xml and application/pls+xml '
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document:
- 'XHTML+Voice - application/xhtml-voice+xml '
draft-mccobb-xplusv-media-type-03.txt as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments
30 matches
Mail list logo
