Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Perhaps it would be more fruitful to address the underlying problem --
> that we have to pursue our work in parallel, because the organisation
> is significantly overcommitted. You feel that the GENAREA work is
> important enough to guarantee it doesn't have conflicts, but others are
> likely to feel differently -- both in the importance of the GENAREA
> work and in the importance of their own interests.
If we are going to fix the underlying problem, of being overcommitted, it
will be via discussions in the GEN area. So... maybe we should just have our
GENAREA WG (with maximal conflicts), cons up some new structures for the
work, and then when people complain that we didn't consult them, we'll just
point that that they said they didn't care :-)
It will be much easier to fix things this way.
(This is essentially equivalent to Jury Duty, like nomcom, but with fewer
breakfast meetings and midnight webexes)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
