Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"

On Feb 14, 2017, at 6:51 PM, Pete Resnick 
<presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> wrote:

The WG should have sought the expertise.


This appears to be a rule quite frequently honored in the breach.

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG", (continued) Re: To "lose the argument in the WG", Stewart Bryant Re: To "lose the argument in the WG", Dave Crocker Re: To "lose the argument in the WG", Joel M. Halpern Re: To "lose the argument in the WG", Mark Andrews Re: To "lose the argument in the WG", Yoav Nir Re: To "lose the argument in the WG", Ted Lemon Re: To "lose the argument in the WG", Dave Crocker Re: To "lose the argument in the WG", Pete Resnick Re: To "lose the argument in the WG", Ted Lemon Re: To "lose the argument in the WG", Pete Resnick Re: To "lose the argument in the WG", Ted Lemon <= Re: To "lose the argument in the WG", John C Klensin Re: To "lose the argument in the WG", John Leslie Re: To "lose the argument in the WG", S Moonesamy Re: To "lose the argument in the WG", John C Klensin Re: To "lose the argument in the WG", S Moonesamy Re: To "lose the argument in the WG", Ted Lemon Re: To "lose the argument in the WG", Ted Lemon Why do we have working group charters (was: To "lose the argument in the WG"), S Moonesamy Re: Why do we have working group charters (was: To "lose the argument in the WG"), Ted Lemon Re: Why do we have working group charters (was: To "lose the argument in the WG"), John C Klensin