On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 07:24:20PM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
I've made no such assumptions. I've submitted a couple of process documents
from W3C that can be modified easily to fit the IETF model. I thought John
and Steven would be satisfied with a rough draft. Sort of like Windows might
provide a model for a Linux open source program, without the actual code
being yet written. :-)
Well, a key part of the W3C model is that you can't even post on a wg
mailing list without you and/or your organization signing contract (I
believe they require an ink signature, but I'm not 100% sure of that),
or being explicitly invited by the chair as an "guest" or "invited
expert", and with everyone in the wg being told that any postings from
said "guest" must be treated as "unclean, unclean!" since they haven't
signed the ink contract.
I will not, wryly, that having a closed mailing list does solve the
FSF problem, since they will no longer be able to spam our mailing
lists. The question is whether the cure is worse than the disease.
However, for you to say that this isn't a big deal to adapt to IETF
mechanisms is handwaving --- unless you're saying that closed
workgroups that require legal contracts to be signed before anyone is
allowed to participate is a good thing.... ?
- Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf