On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, David Harris wrote: > I guess that means I've just broken rule #1 - I volunteered. :-)
No good deed goes unpunished. :-) > > Generally, there is no such thing as an invitation to a discussion. > ?? Way back in 1992 or 1993 I asked John Klensin if I could take part > in the SMTP working group and was told that it was by invitation only. I'm not sure which effort that was (the WG that led to RFC 2821 was definitely open), but you'll notice that I said "generally". There certainly are such things as invitation-only mailing lists, but any WG that meets at an IETF is open. > Since then I've always assumed that the IETF was a closed shop and > that I was being excluded from it either because of some position I had > taken or because I was considered unqualified in some way. Then let me correct that assumption now: that entire paragraph is false. > Certainly I was never able to take part in the EMC, even though I would > have loved to do so, simply because they wanted US$10,000 from me > to participate, and I've *never* had that level of resourcing. That's not IETF. > OK, although I'd probably want to make it a little broader and cover > areas like "Why LIST "" "*" is considered bad practice". Perhaps a > broader informational document on issues associated with the LIST > command? Sounds good to me. Put together a document and throw it to the wolves, uh, I meant "ask the mailing list for comments and suggestions"; ignore that bit about wolves, you didn't hear it, OK? > I can't absolutely guarantee that this will happen rapidly >[snip] You aren't alone. Almost all of us are in a similar situation with multiple irons in the fire, often having to neglect a high-priority task in order to fight a fire. Never blame conspiracy and evil when incompetence and overwork provide a complete explanation. :-) -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
