Ned,
It is certainly fair to say that implementors do participate
in mailing list discussions, and that their participation is very
valuable. However, many times the number of participants that are
"active" (read - vocal) are those that "lurk" and it is my opinion
- supported by observation of, and discussion with, implementors at
a number of different companies - that the proportion of lurkers
that are implementors is somewhat higher than the proportion of
active participants that are also implementors. I am also of the
opinion that for each participant (either lurker or active), there
are many implementors that participate "vicariously" through those
others in their organization who are more disposed to participate.
The number of implementors that do not - therefore - actively
particpate in IETF working groups is many times the number that do
- and this would clearly look to many people (especially to an out-
sider) as if implementors are too busy implementing to participate
in mailing list discussions.
--
Eric
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
--> On Behalf Of Ned Freed
--> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9:41 AM
--> To: Anthony G Atkielski
--> Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> Subject: Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus
-->
--> > Robert Sayre writes:
-->
--> > > I suspect the IESG will find that the folks actually
--> trying to get
--> > > work done in the presence of JFC's emails all feel the
--> same way. Most
--> > > of the objections seem to be coming from people concerned with
--> > > designing the perfect bureaucratic process. In any WG, there are
--> > > implementers whose support is valuable. The rest of the
--> participants
--> > > are valuable when they fix bugs. JFC doesn't seem to
--> fix many bugs,
--> > > and drives implementers away in droves, from what I can see.
-->
--> > Which implementers are those?
-->
--> > Implementers don't spend their time jabbering on
--> discussion groups;
--> > they are too busy implementing.
-->
--> Gee, it's nice to know I don't exist - that will save me
--> tons of time...
-->
--> As it happens I'm actively involved in the implementation
--> of almost all of the
--> protocol specifications I work on. I typically write the
--> code myself for SMTP
--> and sieve stuff, IMAP stuff is usually done by other
--> people on my team. And
--> this code usually ends up in commercial products used at
--> lots of sites to
--> support many millions of users - it is hardly an academic exercise.
-->
--> I know lots of other IETF participants who are involved in
--> specification
--> implementation. Quite a few of them write the code
--> themselves. Some work on
--> open source, others on propietary implementations, and
--> there are even some that
--> appear to do it just to make sure things really are
--> implementable. In fact
--> there are entire WGs (e.g., sieve) where almost all of the
--> active participants
--> appear to be implementors.
-->
--> > Analyze, specific, code, test,
--> > release. No need for chewing the fat on a mailing list in that
--> > process.
-->
--> How very wrong you are. This sort of interaction is HUGELY
--> valuable to
--> implementors.
-->
--> > And there are only so many hours in a day, so one can spend
--> > them doing things or spend them talking about doing
--> things, but it's
--> > hard to manage both.
-->
--> This, at least, is true. But "hard to manage" !=
--> "imposssible to manage".
-->
--> > > It has been suggested that I be placed under RFC 3683
--> sanctions in the
--> > > past, though I suppose the offending messages have
--> always been in
--> > > response to misconduct (not a justification). I don't
--> think the IETF
--> > > is in any danger of developing a trigger finger here.
-->
--> > If all the time spent discussing this most useless of RFCs were
--> > dedicated to actually addressing real problems, what might be
--> > accomplished?
-->
--> Aside from providing comic relief, exactly what does your
--> your ridiculous
--> assertion that implmentors don't particulate in the IETF
--> accomplish?
-->
--> Ned
-->
--> _______________________________________________
--> Ietf mailing list
--> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-->
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf