here is your reply to me:
the xmpp folks have a workable, deployed solution in the
conferencing space. if they decide to take this work to the ietf,
then that should also be accorded the same courtesy in being judged
on its merits in the context of xmpp.
I can understand that you have concerns that XCON may
produce something so generally useful that it might get
in the way of rubber stamping protocols developed
elsewhere. I do not believe that it is in the greater
interest of the IETF, though, to intentionally cripple
working groups merely to allow for the eventuality of
the introduction of competing work.
here is your reply to richard
proposed solutions (all of which I expect to instantly
be accepted as working group items in the case that the
working group is chartered) demonstrate no such binding.
accordingly, i think your statement regarding "rubber stamping" is
pointed in the wrong direction... in addition to the controversial
wording in the proposed charter, we now have an issue regarding bias on
the part of the proposed chairs...