Re: Proposal for keeping "free speech" but limitting the nuisance to the working group (Was: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin)

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>  
>
> > A practice I used when I was diffserv chair and we had quite a lot
> > of off-topic postings was to create a second list, diffserv-interest
> > (which still exists BTW). The rule for diffserv at ietf.org was "must
> > be relevant to a chartered work item" and the rule for diffserv-interest
> > was "must be relevant to diffserv technology."
>
>
> Though I never participated in diffserv WG activities, which was
> chartered wrongly from the beginning,

As a matter of fact, I believe that the insistence of the ADs
involved on a very tightly drawn charter was the main reason that
the WG succeeded.

> your chairing strategy

You mean the care we took to consider dissenting opinions before
reaching rough consensus? Or something else?

> explains why the result of the WG is technically meaningless.

That is a strange statement given the actual facts of implementation
and deployment.

> > People only interested
> > in the standards work simply ignored the -interest list.
>
>
> They ignored the -interest list and the technology.

Are you referring to the many vendors that implemented
it, or the many enterprises that have deployed it?

    Brian


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