At 9:07 AM +0100 3/26/01, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
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.
This is essentially what we mean when we say, "We believe in rough
consensus and running code." Informality is born of the attitude
everyone who comes to the IETF brings technical expertise.
At 4:31 PM +0000 3/23/01, Lloyd Wood wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> ... "tourist" refers to someone who attends
> and possibly tries to participate in working groups without having done
their homework. I've lost track of how many times this week I heard "I
haven't read the drafts, but..." or "Did you read the draft? No,
but..."
But isn't cross-group fertilisation and wider exposure of work
supposed to be good for the open process and peer review?
Applying your technical expertise requires understanding the nature
of the problem. Not reading the drafts and reviewing the archives
makes the cross-fertilization rather sterile.
--
john noerenberg
jwn2(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing disturbs a bishop quite so much as a saint in the parish.
-- Lila, Robert M. Pirsig, 1991
--------------------------------------------------------------------------