On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 07:18 -0400, Thomas Narten wrote: > Jeroen Massar <jeroen@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > Just like the above, except that the chairs can see the email addresses > > that people gave when they voted. They could then check this list > > against the list that has actually been signed up on the wg's > > mailinglist and filter out discrepancies, might these exist. > > Maybe this is pointing out the obvious, but discounting input because > it comes from someone not subscribed to the list is Poor > Practice. Often, the most critical (but also the best) reviews come > from folk outside of the WG, who are not following the work closely, > and are reading a draft entirely on its own merits, and from a broader > perspective than the WG might have. This was not obvious, at least did not directly jump into my mind to me when I wrote the above part, but indeed is very logical. On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 10:26 -0400, Bruce Lilly wrote: > In short, quality of argument trumps (if the chair is chairing) > quantity. Voting (incl. as "straw polls") only measures quantity, not > quality. And I fully agree with that statement too. Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf