Being practical, you only *need* to attend a meeting if there is an
intractable problem in front of a WG you're actively participating in,
and solving that problem requires a face-to-face session.
essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
restaurants, and bars -
essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:43:06 CST, Matt Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
I'm willing to place
essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
I'm willing to place bets that a *very* large chunk of things
accomplished in the
essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
you cleverly left off the rest of my statement where I said
the ideas are reviewed by WGs.
nor
You've said that you don't go to meetings, so I won't fault your
naivete, but the bulk of the hallway and bar work consists of
squashing, not originating, WG items.
since more bad/naive ideas are generated than good ones, this seems
entirely appropriate.
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
I think this is an artifact of the use of mailing lists for WG traffic:
it's just not practical to follow all the mailing lists. (I sure
don't.) A possible solution would be to feed all of the WG lists into a
read-only IMAP (and NNTP) server,
On Mar 18, Scott Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip all your arguments that I now accept as being reasonable now I've had
a reasonable intake of Dr. Pepper and cigarettes :-)
I think you make some good points regarding the ability of independent
developers to find funding. So good that
