Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF? (was: moving from hosts to sponsors)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 6/26/06, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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,

I meant replace the documents, rather than the WG. But you're right,
they do get angrier, at first. For example, in the somewhat-successful
Atompub group, this happened at least twice.

The protocol document still contains a lot of cruft that's only in
there so that a few vendors can call whatever it is they're building
"Atom". It might not be fatal stuff, so forking it won't work. The
resulting document will be easy to improve on, if someone wants to,
but it sure is a heck of a lot more practical than WS-*.

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.

I maintain that no process will accomplish that. The only way to get a
WG to accept a clue is to demonstrate that their output is irrelevant
by concrete example.

--

Robert Sayre

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]