Re: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG Review)

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

 



Only that you know enough people so that you could push a new technology even without attending, although you would need to collaborate with some people who do go. But pushing a new technology requires team building anyway.

The same should apply to other non-attenders who have gained some reputation.


On Apr 19, 2013, at 11:23 AM, l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> 
> and the point of your ad-hominem argument is what, exactly?
> 
> Lloyd Wood
> http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/publications/internet-drafts
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Yoav Nir [ynir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 18 April 2013 15:18
> To: Wood L  Dr (Electronic Eng)
> Cc: worley@xxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG     Review)
> 
> Looking in Jari's statistics site, you have three RFCs. One of those has several co-authors that I recognize as current "goers". You also have a current draft with several co-authors, but I have no idea whether they're "goers" or not. Anyway, you are not a hermit. Through the RFCs and drafts that you have co-authored, you know people who do attend.






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