Re: improving WG operation

[Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>]

> > I've never seen an AD insist that a WG devote valuable face-to- 
> > face meeting
> > time to "checking" work that was peripheral to the WG's interest.
>
> Check again, please. I personally have been asked to take items to WGs
> that I've already presented them to repeatedly - even at the meeting
> adjacent to a Last Call.

Okay, so maybe that was a botch.  But surely you can find a quicker  
and more effective way to remedy that botch than by whining about it  
endlessly here?  And if you couldn't figure out how to do that by  
yourself, why couldn't you ask some people with more experience  
working in and/or with IESG?

(and did the AD really insist that you bring this up in a _face-to- 
face_ WG meeting, or is that just how you and/or the WG chair chose  
to interpret it?)

Why is this one botch evidence of such a fundamental problem with the  
IETF process that it needs to be altered in a way that there's plenty  
of reason to believe will work far worse than what we have?

Keith


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf