On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:16:53PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > I just don't think that IETF meeting attendance is an appropriate way to > decide who is a nutcase and who isn't. Appropriate or not, it's not an effective way to distinguish nuts, as it should not surprise you to learn that most of the people who come to IETF meetings are nuts as well. Nor does it have to be if the goal is to reduce the frequency of incidence rather than a complete shut-out. By asking for a 'conspiracy of mixed nuts' rather than a 'single nut acting alone', the frequency of incidence should be drastically reduced. But, we mustn't let nuts use their mom as a supporter, or else such conspiracies of mixed nuts would ultimately be the rule. So, some limitations must be made. The definitions in Olafur's draft for qualified supporters shouldn't be considered exclusionary. People in that position can still participate by expressing opinions, or possibly might convince someone else to offer their support in proxy. Perhaps Olafur might even be convinced to produce text in his draft that encourages individuals to provide their support in proxy, or to allow IAB/IESG members to waive. -- ISC Training! October 16-20, 2006, in the San Francisco Bay Area, covering topics from DNS to DDNS & DHCP. Email training@xxxxxxxx -- David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
Attachment:
pgppEPXlppYOa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf