...@ariadne.com; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG
Review)
Only that you know enough people so that you could push a new technology even
without attending, although you would need to collaborate with some people who
do go. But pushing a new
: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG
Review)
Only that you know enough people so that you could push a new technology even
without attending, although you would need to collaborate with some people
who do go. But pushing a new technology requires team building anyway
On 4/19/2013 2:02 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
Only that you know enough people so that you could push a new technology even
without attending,
IETF work officially happens on IETF lists, not at in-person meetings.
As per the Tao of the IETF: Any decision made at a face-to-face meeting
must also
@ietf.org
Subject: RE: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG
Review)
Looking in Jari's statistics site, you have three RFCs. One of those has
several co-authors that I recognize as current goers. You also have a current
draft with several co-authors, but I have no idea
2013 15:18
To: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng)
Cc: wor...@ariadne.com; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG
Review)
Looking in Jari's statistics site, you have three RFCs. One of those has
several co-authors that I recognize as current
: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG
Review)
From: Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com
On Apr 16, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote:
I've advocated the equivalent of the following opinion before
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current
:38
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG
Review)
From: Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com
On Apr 16, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote:
I've advocated the equivalent of the following opinion before
(http
@ietf.org
Subject: Re: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG
Review)
Not entirely true.
It is true that getting management positions (chairs, AD, NomCom) requires
meeting attendance. But a non-attender can get recognition for quality
technical points, and can even
...@ariadne.com; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG
Review)
I've written RFCs without attending meetings; easy to do if the work is a
aligned with a workgroup.
That's fine if you're happy to be a technical resource with skills to be drawn
upon
On Apr 18, 2013, at 5:02 AM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
but you can become prominent in the sense that people might say this
document hasn't had enough review. Let's ask so-and-so to read it
Yes, it's worth noting that working group chairs are often desperate for people
about whom
From: Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com
On Apr 16, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote:
I've advocated the equivalent of the following opinion before
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77479.html), but
in the current context it bears repeating:
How can a memebr of staff in a company argue with the manager
about the manager's decisions or performance?
It is IMO the *obligation* of a professional to call his manager on
wrong decisions or performance.
I've advocated the equivalent of the following opinion before
On Apr 16, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote:
I've advocated the equivalent of the following opinion before
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77479.html), but
in the current context it bears repeating: Here in the IETF we accept
that low-status
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Abdussalam Baryun
abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
How can a memebr of staff in a company argue with the manager about the
manager's decisions or performance? Only Owners/shareholders can question
managers and staff. IMO, the meeting/list discussions on
Hi Arturo, and all,
(sorry that this message is long but I want to make this my last post
on the subject)
The reason of this message/subject is that I want to avoid some group
working together to achieve their purpose (while they may be fogetting
the IETF purpose) within a WG. If I am a company
I just change the subject because I still beleive the problem with review
is in the WG not IESG. Some WGs have few reviews on each WG document, that
may not be bad, but I think having only one review or comment (excluding
authors) within a WGLC is wrong in a WG review process. I think WG chair
can
On 4/12/13 4:58 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I just change the subject because I still beleive the problem with
review is in the WG not IESG. Some WGs have few reviews on each WG
document, that may not be bad, but I think having only one review or
comment (excluding authors) within a WGLC is
17 matches
Mail list logo
