-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Keith Moore wrote: >>> I've never seen an AD insist that a WG devote valuable face-to- face >>> meeting >>> time to "checking" work that was peripheral to the WG's interest. >> >> Check again, please. I personally have been asked to take items to WGs >> that I've already presented them to repeatedly - even at the meeting >> adjacent to a Last Call. > > Okay, so maybe that was a botch. But surely you can find a quicker and > more effective way to remedy that botch than by whining about it > endlessly here? And if you couldn't figure out how to do that by > yourself, why couldn't you ask some people with more experience working > in and/or with IESG? > > (and did the AD really insist that you bring this up in a _face-to- > face_ WG meeting, or is that just how you and/or the WG chair chose to > interpret it?) What's the difference if it eats time you perceive as wasted post-facto? > Why is this one botch evidence of such a fundamental problem with the > IETF process that it needs to be altered in a way that there's plenty > of reason to believe will work far worse than what we have? > > Keith It isn't - the point is that wasting valuable face-to-face time at WGs doing cross-area checks is one of the points of the face-to-face meetings. Whether time is wasted is easy to assert post-facto, but short of avoiding cross-area review and entrusting it solely to the mythical "omniscient, wise, and prudent AD", what's the alternative to erring on the side of wasting time? Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCemKJE5f5cImnZrsRAkHvAKDzDMlq05212BtWTl9JG6x1Nl8Z5QCg+4IY Q9gqIezLhsbghQmjCoPg7NI= =vEEo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf