On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 07:18 -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
Jeroen Massar <jeroen(_at_)unfix(_dot_)org> writes:
Just like the above, except that the chairs can see the email addresses
that people gave when they voted. They could then check this list
against the list that has actually been signed up on the wg's
mailinglist and filter out discrepancies, might these exist.
Maybe this is pointing out the obvious, but discounting input because
it comes from someone not subscribed to the list is Poor
Practice. Often, the most critical (but also the best) reviews come
from folk outside of the WG, who are not following the work closely,
and are reading a draft entirely on its own merits, and from a broader
perspective than the WG might have.
This was not obvious, at least did not directly jump into my mind to me
when I wrote the above part, but indeed is very logical.
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 10:26 -0400, Bruce Lilly wrote:
In short, quality of argument trumps (if the chair is chairing)
quantity. Voting (incl. as "straw polls") only measures quantity, not
And I fully agree with that statement too.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Ietf mailing list