I was responding to the assertion that stuff got to the IETF because the
individuals are, for the most part, paid by companies, and thus if someone was
proposing a work item, it obviously was motivated by a corporate need. My
statements was an obvious COUNTER-example. Sorry I didn't make the smiley
larger.
-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no]
Sent: Tue Jan 10 18:23:55 2006
To: James M. Polk; Burger, Eric
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Working Group chartering
--On tirsdag, januar 10, 2006 12:26:22 -0600 "James M. Polk"
<jmpolk(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
At 12:55 PM 1/10/2006 -0500, Burger, Eric wrote:
Also, I am a big proponent of microeconomics, which would have rational
actors only put forth and push stuff clearly needed for products.
HOWEVER, in the "highest" IETF fashion, I've regularly seen multiple
folks from the same company arguing against each other in the working
groups.
Now, which company does this sound like?
I would have much more appreciated their working out their
differences at home and bring in their 'corporate' position :)
I do hope you're not even remotely serious with this suggestion...
Seconding James.. a requirement to have unanimous intra-company signoff on
anything presented to the IETF would be the single quickest way to reduce
the contributions to the IETF from the companies I've been involved in....
"we are all individuals", in addition to its other properties, is a way to
let me say things (like this message) in public WITHOUT having to check
with my "representative" or my "coordinating committee" before sending it.
If my company says "why did you say <stupid thing>", I can always say "it
was my personal contribution, you don't have to take the blame for it".
Has worked for me so far....
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf