Jon Callas wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006, at 10:14 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
This merely requires that we have a discussion 'chair' who introduces
the next topic, provides a bit of on-going oversight, and declares a
topic closed when it is.
And list participants that behave. From my p-o-v that is a real
plus for jabber - people act as if they're in a meeting, which
we don't all always do with email.
+2^n-1
...
It seems to me that not only is Jabber something that
discourages participation, as it requires such a meeting to be scheduled
along with the rest of life, but it doesn't actually work.
That's overstated IMO. Jabber has worked pretty well, except in
a couple of cases. (But you are on record as not liking it, and
for good reasons, I acknowledge.)
I think a moderated DKIM-issues list might be the best way to handle
issues.
If there were support for something like that I'd be willing, but I
suspect it might also generate opposition and as Dave said it puts
a big burden on the moderator.
I'd like us to stick with the jabber sessions for the next few
weeks and we can discuss it in San Diego (and on the list) and
maybe change modus operandi when we finish the ssp-reqs.
S.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html