On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:26:13 -0500, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:44:59 +0000 (GMT), csm(_at_)moongroup(_dot_)com wrote:
PHB has made what seems to me to be an excellent suggestion. He
suggests that the subject line of this email should be the
organizational name for what we're trying to form. In spite of the
fact that he and I have had significant differences I happen to
agree with this strategy. I invite comments and discussion?
1. gaining public acceptance as a 'standards' group requires some track
record. the usual model for a group like this is that it works as an adjunct
to formal standards efforts.
2. this is an spf effort. characterizing it as something larger -- such as
"accountability messaging" will merely cause it to overlap with other,
independent efforts, thereby creating confusion.
d/
I was actually thinking the same thing as Dave. The name does imply a
broader mandate. On the other hand, an umbrella group might not be a
bad idea.
If a single group could help deal with coexistance and implementation
issues then closer consideration should be given to the idea. To a
large extent the same people will have their oars in development
(whether cooperating or as adversaries) and/or be implementing
(whether primarily senders, receivers or both...also musn't forget
vendors).
If the various constituencies can find a way to work together this is
clearly much better than working at cross purposes. I think most
(perhaps even all) the players can find a way to work together. The
playing field has to be clear (as Phillip pointed out, the rules are
usually set before nominations) and there needs to be a consensus that
the common interests outweigh the differences.
I recognize that I mostly lurk and rarely post so I'm not making any
nominations. I do think a broader leadership group that has (some)
representation of the broader stakeholders (including large ISPs)
should be considered.
As usual, just my 2 cents.
Mike