actually, the problem i have with the message was that there is an
assumption about an attitude - i mean al i meant was i wanted to get
good engineering work done in the normal way all effective work gets done
given it wasnt actually a WG it couldnt actualy make any decisions,
but it mioght get some design done (albeit it could then be thrown out
by a WG which is fine by me...)
i think the value of the IETF is its informality - the implied litigious
american attitude about "open" = "everyone MUST attend" etc would
break the IETF even more than pure size. if people want to head that
way then we might as well charge corporate membershipo, ban
individuals and go for the full ITU model....
i dunno...
In message <3ABB6764(_dot_)B92B5845(_at_)hursley(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>, Brian E
Carpenter typed:
Design teams and editorial teams are part of our process,
and they may as well meet in the pub as anywhere. As long
as their results are put in front of the WG, I don't see
a problem here.
Brian
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Not to pick on Jon specifically, but how is this common IETF
attitude consistent with the IETF's stated commitment to
open process?
At 06:52 AM 3/23/01 , Jon Crowcroft wrote:
also,the wireless access fro mthe pub was inspired! we got really
serious bar bof work done without tourists kibbitzing
cheers
jon