*>
*> But in the scenarios you allude to, pretty much *all* of the work to
*> address those problems should have been handled on the WG mailing
*> list. Also, standards do not get approved at IETF meetings (referring
*> to your "rubber stamped by Cisco" comments), so there's no need to
Ah, the WG items have low survivability. And what does THAT tell you?
Matt Crawford wrote:
>
> > > > essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
> > > > restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
> > >
> > > Yes, I see. So much for the myth o
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> I think this is an artifact of the use of mailing lists for WG traffic:
> it's just not practical to follow all the mailing lists. (I sure
> don't.) A possible solution would be to feed all of the WG lists into a
> read-only IMAP (and NNTP) server
> You've said that you don't go to meetings, so I won't fault your
> naivete, but the bulk of the hallway and bar work consists of
> squashing, not originating, WG items.
since more bad/naive ideas are generated than good ones, this seems
entirely appropriate.
> > essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
> > restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
>
> Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
you cleverly left off the rest of my statement where I said
the ideas are reviewed by WGs.
> > > essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
> > > restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
> >
> > Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
>
> I'm willing to place bets that a *very* large chunk of things
> accomplished in
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:43:06 CST, Matt Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
> > restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
>
> Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
I'm willing to p
> essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
> restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
> Being practical, you only *need* to attend a meeting if there is an
> intractable problem in front of a WG you're actively participating in,
> and solving that problem requires a face-to-face session.
essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
restaurants, and bars -
> I'm not sure what they do now, but I
> know that I've seen dicussions on freebsd lists and others where people are
> discussing how to implement certain features into some somewhere, where the
> conclusion is whoever wrote the RFC should be shot.
> The main problem right now though may be one o
On Mar 18, Scott Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you make some good points regarding the ability of independent
> developers to find funding. So good that I'm going to make a point to
> watch for cases in which it might be in my companies interest to
> sponsor such people, and su
11 matches
Mail list logo
