> On 6/24/06, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > In other words, we don't want to distract WGs with useful input ... > > better that they should keep their heads in the sand for the entire > > 2-3 years of their existence and then produce irrelevant or even > > harmful output. And that way, maybe a few influential people within > > the WG can coerce the WG into producing something that favors their > > employers' short-term interest even if it harms other interests or > > glosses over important limitations. > > If the errors are sufficiently grave, it is easy to fork the WG > documents and have them replaced or completely rewritten. it's not easy at all - because even if you replace the WG you'll have most of the same individuals active in the new one as in the old one - only they'll be angrier than the first time around, and there's a good chance that any people you lose in the transition will include those who had more clue. I'm much more interested in trying to figure out how to get WGs to stay on track in the first place and to accept useful clue from elsewhere. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf