-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Keith Moore wrote:
I've never seen an AD insist that a WG devote valuable face-to- face
meeting
time to "checking" work that was peripheral to the WG's interest.
Check again, please. I personally have been asked to take items to WGs
that I've already presented them to repeatedly - even at the meeting
adjacent to a Last Call.
Okay, so maybe that was a botch. But surely you can find a quicker and
more effective way to remedy that botch than by whining about it
endlessly here? And if you couldn't figure out how to do that by
yourself, why couldn't you ask some people with more experience working
in and/or with IESG?
(and did the AD really insist that you bring this up in a _face-to-
face_ WG meeting, or is that just how you and/or the WG chair chose to
interpret it?)
What's the difference if it eats time you perceive as wasted post-facto?
Why is this one botch evidence of such a fundamental problem with the
IETF process that it needs to be altered in a way that there's plenty
of reason to believe will work far worse than what we have?
Keith
It isn't - the point is that wasting valuable face-to-face time at WGs
doing cross-area checks is one of the points of the face-to-face
meetings. Whether time is wasted is easy to assert post-facto, but short
of avoiding cross-area review and entrusting it solely to the mythical
"omniscient, wise, and prudent AD", what's the alternative to erring on
the side of wasting time?
Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCemKJE5f5cImnZrsRAkHvAKDzDMlq05212BtWTl9JG6x1Nl8Z5QCg+4IY
Q9gqIezLhsbghQmjCoPg7NI=
=vEEo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf