At 10:52 PM -0500 3/5/02, Scott Bradner wrote:
this was meant as a way for the ITU-T management to say, in effect "he
knows what is going on" - this was not intended to mean that any
such designated person carries any more weight in IETF WG deliberations
than does any other individual
At 4:52 PM -0500 3/6/02, John Stracke wrote:
My point was that I *cannot* double check.
You're right that I still can't double-check someone authorized to speak
for the ITU; but, if the ITU is careful about whom it authorizes, then
such people may wind up building a reputation for
trustworthiness--"they're probably right, or the ITU leadership
wouldn't've authorized them". And, if they get it wrong, then there's a
known person to tie to the rails when the train wreck happens.
It's highly desirable to foster collaboration with other standards
organizations. However, what's the point of tying someone to the
rails after the train wreck?
I, like Keith, am very bothered by the precedent this sets.
--
john noerenberg
jwn2(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Credibility," however, is not a quality that can be legislated,
nor can it be coded.
-- Lawrence Lessig, "Code And Other Laws of Cyberspace", 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------