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

["Robert Sayre" <sayrer at gmail.com>]

On 6/24/06, Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu> wrote:
> In other words, we don't want to distract WGs with useful input ...
> better that they should keep their heads in the sand for the entire
> 2-3 years of their existence and then produce irrelevant or even
> harmful output.  And that way, maybe a few influential people within
> the WG can coerce the WG into producing something that favors their
> employers' short-term interest even if it harms other interests or
> glosses over important limitations.

If the errors are sufficiently grave, it is easy to fork the WG
documents and have them replaced or completely rewritten. That's
enough, IMHO. Disliking the existence of the WG itself is probably not
grounds for any sort of action.

The advice WGs need most often is probably "most of your goals are
false ones, and this design is 10x too complicated". In the apps area,
"stop using W3C XML Schema" is probably up there, too.

I don't see a way to require that WGs discard most of their goals and
designs when they're told to. Banning XML Schema should be possible,
though. ;)

--

Robert Sayre

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