--On 28. november 2005 09:03 -0800 Dave Crocker <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
At the least, please read my comments (and Ned's) more carefully. I said "arbitrary". Lest that seem too broad and vague, I'll instead simply use "misguided".
I don't think this discussion is terribly productive, so I'll shut up after this....
my point, as far as I had one, was that you were making a general statement about arbitrary rules, without reference to any particular set of them.
You have claimed that the I-D submission deadline is arbitrary, despite the fact that people have advanced two separate reasons for them (reduced load on staff just before the meetings and giving people time to read).
I have claimed that I think your ideas for chopping off working groups that fail to meet fairly rigid deadlines are not useful (because they will be seen as arbiatrary), despite the fact that you think differently.
I think we agree that arbitrary rules are not useful.But we have failed to find common ground on which rules fit that characterization.
I suggest that we retire accusations of "arbitrariness" from the discussion, and rather try to discuss real and perceived effects of the rules.
Harald
Attachment:
pgpb5mt90xeKN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf