Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

I must say that I have enjoyed reading the discussion between the three of you, 
and think it is immensely valuable in explaining what the IESG ought to be 
doing.   You three should write it up.

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process, (continued) Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process, Joe Touch Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process, Ted Lemon Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process, Joe Touch Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process, Ted Lemon Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process, Joe Touch Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process, Keith Moore Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process, Pete Resnick Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process, Keith Moore Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process, John C Klensin Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process, Keith Moore Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process, Ted Lemon <= Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process, Ralph Droms Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process, Joe Touch Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process, Jari Arkko Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process, Keith Moore Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process, Jari Arkko Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process, Thomas Narten Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process, Joe Touch Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process, Dave Crocker Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process, Joe Touch Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process, Stephen Farrell