Well just one person will not be able to create rough concensus, except
in a VERY small group. Saying that someone MUST be wanting to produce
an inferior document because they were paid to create a product based on
the spec is not fair to any participants. I claim that MANY, if not
MOST IETF participants are paid one way or another based on the
specifications that they are working on.
If a document has technical problems for the minority of participants
(i.e. the non-rough concensus) this doesn't mean there are technical
problems...
That said I have not heard of anyone who is told... You will get a
(large sum of money) if the draft you have written gets through the IETF
without any changes. I would assume that anyone who took that as a
bonus stipulation, wasn't expecting to get paid...
I consider it part of my job to monitor the IETF and tell my employer
what I believe the decisions are going to be, what changes might be
coming, and how close to an RFC a given draft is.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu
[mailto:moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 3:03 PM
To: bill(_at_)strahm(_dot_)net
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: DNSEXT WGLC Summary: AXFR clarify
I hope EVERYONE deeply involved in a WG documentation process has deep
DEEP conflict of interest problems.
seems a bit of a stretch. it's one thing to have an interest in
producing a technically sound outcome; quite another to have an interest
in producing a particular outcome even when it has technical problems.
Keith