Pekka Savola wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Eric Burger wrote:
> [snip]
> > While it's true that one should try to "see everything", it's hard to
> > imagine, for example, how a junior engineer working on an implementation of
> > wireless ad-hoc networks has much of an interest in ENUM.
> [snip]
>
> What most people seem to be missing is the real work is done outside of
> the WG meetings. You can quite well participate in the IETF process
> without ever (or once or twice a year) being present. Personally, in some
> wg's I've been to, a lot of MIC time is used by people who 1) like their
> own voice, and/or 2) haven't read the drafts.
>
> If you want a focused view, participation isn't necessary. (An IMO stupid
> remnant here is that you have to present the works if they're to be
> adopted as WG items.)
You don't have to present works for them to be adopted as WG items.
Presenting a work does, sometimes, help the WG chair(s) determine interest level
and consensus of the WG, particularly if the issue is contentious and the right
people are present at the meeting (e.g. people who have read the draft and
care). So, while it can help the author's cause to present, it is not (nor ever
has been that I know of) a requirement.
> If you want a general view (perhaps in addition to
> the focused one), coming to the meetings might help.
>
> --
> Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
> Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
