On 2007-10-28 06:36, Andrew Newton wrote:
On Oct 27, 2007, at 11:00 AM, David Morris wrote:
Well for starters, the drive-by hummers have to sit through the session
and be present for the discussion (note I intentionally did not say
listen). They have to demonstrate enough interest in the IETF process to
actually pay the costs of attending the session.
Most of the drive-by hummers have their head buried in their email or
other laptop work, so the expense they run for looking up to hum once or
twice isn't at all onerous. At least in this case, the drive-by
emailers had to spend some thought cycles on the email they composed.
[By the way, when I find myself in a WG meeting I'm not prepared
for, I often have my head buried in the drafts being discussed,
so as to be able to understand the issues. Don't assume that a head
buried in a laptop is always doing email.]
Firstly, apparent consensus in a WG face to face meeting is *not*
consensus of the WG, which must be confirmed on the mailing list.
Secondly, WG chairs and the responsible AD are well able to notice
that a meeting has been packed, and to interpret any straw poll
or hum accordingly.
I think the process has proved to be rather resistant to packing of
meetings, written statements distributed in the meeting room, and
back-channel campaigns to have non-participants commenting on drafts
they haven't read. None of which means we should *ignore* input from
non-participants, but we should not be ashamed of making a judgement
of its weight or lack thereof.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf