Steve - Final decision is made as it is today; proposed change is timing
and context for review...
- Ralph
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 16:28 -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ralph Droms writes
:
So, without meaning any offense to the ADs, I suggest we lump random
Keith - thanks for the pointer to Harrison Bergeron. Coincidentally,
I was trying to recall this story in a conversation recently and had
forgotten the details and the author...
But, I don't see how it applies here. I'm not claiming Nobody was
smarter than anybody else. Yakov explained it
John - editing to get directly to your questions:
On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 18:45 -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
(1) What would it take to convince you that putting in a term or
two as AD --not a life sentence, but a term or two-- was an
obligation you, as long-term participants and contributors,
Ralph,
An interesting, obviously reasonable, and not-unexpected
perspective. But the question wasn't addressed just to you -- I
think it would be useful to hear from others, especially those
who have put in a few terms as WG chairs or doc editors, on
this. What I've heard, very indirectly,
Folks,
To the extent to which that is a real issue, ...
(i) We need to understand the issue and, as appropriate, change things
around until there are alternatives...
(ii) We need to ask ourselves, carefully and sincerely, somne questions
about areas and IETF capabilities...
In
Keith - thanks for the pointer to Harrison Bergeron.
Coincidentally, I was trying to recall this story in a conversation
recently and had
forgotten the details and the author...
But, I don't see how it applies here. I'm not claiming Nobody was
smarter than anybody else. Yakov explained
On Thu, 5 May 2005, Ralph Droms wrote:
But, I don't see how it applies here. I'm not claiming Nobody was
smarter than anybody else. Yakov explained it better than I have: for
each AD there is more than one person in the IETF who is more
technically astute than that AD. So, why should the IETF
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
(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
Keith Moore wrote:
It seems to me that the fundamental problem is that most of the meeting has
not read most of the drafts let alone the latest version under discussion.
I think that's a symptom; a more fundamental problem is that WGs are trying
to do too many things at once.
I've
Keith Moore wrote:
At the same time for each AD there is more than one person in the
IETF who is more technically astute than that AD.
perhaps. however, it's hard to identify those people,
They're the ones disagreeing with the ADs in some cases ;-)
and they may not
have either the
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
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
At the same time for each AD there is more than one person in the
IETF who is more technically astute than that AD.
perhaps. however, it's hard to identify those people,
They're the ones disagreeing with the ADs in some cases ;-)
The set of people disagreeing with ADs include both
I think that's a symptom; a more fundamental problem is that WGs are
trying to do too many things at once.
I've lost track of how many times I've seen a WG
a) take valuable meeting time to have a presentation about a draft
that is only peripherally related to the WG's current task
Keith Moore wrote:
At the same time for each AD there is more than one person in the
IETF who is more technically astute than that AD.
perhaps. however, it's hard to identify those people,
They're the ones disagreeing with the ADs in some cases ;-)
The set of people disagreeing with ADs
Keith Moore wrote:
I think that's a symptom; a more fundamental problem is that WGs are
trying to do too many things at once.
I've lost track of how many times I've seen a WG
a) take valuable meeting time to have a presentation about a draft
that is only peripherally related to the WG's
The set of people disagreeing with ADs include both technically
astute people and egocentric fools.
Ditto for the ADs themselves.
Depending on whom you ask, you'll get differing opinions as who
which people are in which category.
On both counts.
yes, and yes. But there are far fewer
I've never seen an AD insist that a WG devote valuable face-to-
face meeting
time to checking work that was peripheral to the WG's interest.
Check again, please. I personally have been asked to take items to WGs
that I've already presented them to repeatedly - even at the meeting
adjacent to a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keith Moore wrote:
The set of people disagreeing with ADs include both technically
astute people and egocentric fools.
Ditto for the ADs themselves.
Depending on whom you ask, you'll get differing opinions as who
which people are in which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keith Moore wrote:
I've never seen an AD insist that a WG devote valuable face-to- face
meeting
time to checking work that was peripheral to the WG's interest.
Check again, please. I personally have been asked to take items to WGs
that I've
ADs don't have a right to override anything. They are, however,
entrusted with the power to review documents on behalf of the
organization. We extend this trust to a few carefully-screened
people
to avoid the situation where a much larger number of self- selecting
people have the ability to
At 18:11 05/05/2005, Joe Touch wrote:
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
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
On 19:22 05/05/2005, Joe Touch said:
The set of people disagreeing with ADs include both technically astute
people
and egocentric fools.
Ditto for the ADs themselves.
Has this a real importance? The control is by IETF as a whole, _if_ rough
consensus is the rule. What is expected from ADs is
Joe == Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joe delegation) or make their work smaller (by encouraging
Joe feedback to be directional - as in 'take to WG X' - rather
Joe than technical review).
I'll certainly remember this when reviewing documents you author;)
Seriously, I think
Keith == Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu writes:
I wasn't advocating for more ADs, but for more 'virtual' ADs,
i.e., to move the work of reviewing out of the ADs, and let
the ADs distrbute the reviews and collect and interpret the
results.
I would agree on one point.
Re: straightforward, reasonable, and fair
Date: 2005-05-05 11:41
From: Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu
[excerpts]
No matter how bad the
document is, the most an AD can generally manage to do is to insist
on small changes to the text. Yes, in theory the AD could insist
that the
The Service in the PSTN/IN Requesting InTernet Service (spirits) WG in
the Transport Area has concluded.
The IESG contact persons are Allison Mankin and Jon Peterson.
+++
The SPIRITS WG is closing. The charter of SPIRITS contained one deliverable
that
has yet to be completed, a SPIRITS MIB.
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'A Framework for transmission of IP datagrams over MPEG-2 Networks '
draft-ietf-ipdvb-arch-04.txt as an Informational RFC
This document is the product of the IP over DVB Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Margaret Wasserman and Mark
27 matches
Mail list logo
