Re: Voting Idea? (Was: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submissio

On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 07:18 -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
> Jeroen Massar <jeroen(_at_)unfix(_dot_)org> writes:
>
>
> > Just like the above, except that the chairs can see the email addresses
> > that people gave when they voted. They could then check this list
> > against the list that has actually been signed up on the wg's
> > mailinglist and filter out discrepancies, might these exist.
> Maybe this is pointing out the obvious, but discounting input because
> it comes from someone not subscribed to the list is Poor
> Practice. Often, the most critical (but also the best) reviews come
> from folk outside of the WG, who are not following the work closely,
> and are reading a draft entirely on its own merits, and from a broader
> perspective than the WG might have.
This was not obvious, at least did not directly jump into my mind to me
when I wrote the above part, but indeed is very logical.

On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 10:26 -0400, Bruce Lilly wrote:

> In short, quality of argument trumps (if the chair is chairing)
> quantity.  Voting (incl. as "straw polls") only measures quantity, not
> quality.
And I fully agree with that statement too.

Greets,
 Jeroen

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf