--On 28. november 2005 09:03 -0800 Dave Crocker <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
At the least, please read my comments (and Ned's) more carefully. I said
"arbitrary". Lest that seem too broad and vague, I'll instead simply use
I don't think this discussion is terribly productive, so I'll shut up after
my point, as far as I had one, was that you were making a general statement
about arbitrary rules, without reference to any particular set of them.
You have claimed that the I-D submission deadline is arbitrary, despite the
fact that people have advanced two separate reasons for them (reduced load
on staff just before the meetings and giving people time to read).
I have claimed that I think your ideas for chopping off working groups that
fail to meet fairly rigid deadlines are not useful (because they will be
seen as arbiatrary), despite the fact that you think differently.
I think we agree that arbitrary rules are not useful.
But we have failed to find common ground on which rules fit that
I suggest that we retire accusations of "arbitrariness" from the
discussion, and rather try to discuss real and perceived effects of the
Description: PGP signature
Ietf mailing list