On 6/24/06, Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> wrote:
In other words, we don't want to distract WGs with useful input ...
better that they should keep their heads in the sand for the entire
2-3 years of their existence and then produce irrelevant or even
harmful output. And that way, maybe a few influential people within
the WG can coerce the WG into producing something that favors their
employers' short-term interest even if it harms other interests or
glosses over important limitations.
If the errors are sufficiently grave, it is easy to fork the WG
documents and have them replaced or completely rewritten.
it's not easy at all - because even if you replace the WG you'll have
most of the same individuals active in the new one as in the old one -
only they'll be angrier than the first time around, and there's a good
chance that any people you lose in the transition will include those
who had more clue. I'm much more interested in trying to figure out
how to get WGs to stay on track in the first place and to accept useful
clue from elsewhere.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf