Please remember that IETF adheres to a consensus process, which is not a
democratic process. There is no representation by delegation but
representation by competence. Because at the end of the day one does not
count votes but serious opponents. The target is to present a solution non
one will oppose. So, everyone with a significant position is to be
discussed with.
jfc
At 10:31 16/10/2004, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Vernon Schryver <vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com> writes:
>> From: "Eric S. Raymond" <esr(_at_)thyrsus(_dot_)com>
>
>> Your two people to go to on this would be RMS (representing the FSF)
>> or me (representing the OSI); between us I believe we can speak for
>> over 95% of the community.
>
> I hate it when elected politicans presume to speak for me. I will not
> sit quietly and let self-appointed individuals try the same.
I can sympathize with that. I do believe it would be useful for the
IETF to speak with Eric Raymond or RMS, but it shouldn't be under the
pretext that they can speak for all, or nearly all, open source or
free software developers. That may give a false expectation in the
IETF to resolve an issue "for good", that may not ever be solved. I
believe the talks should serve the purpose of explaining things that
cannot be explained on mailing lists, but not be considered as
"negotiations".
As for the open source community coming together and deciding what it
wants, I don't think that will happen. It is like asking all
companies to come together and decide what the enterprise community
wants.
Thanks.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf