Re: Should I* opinions be afforded a special status? (Re: [saag] Declining the ifare bof for Chicago)

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

Re: Should I* opinions be afforded a special status? (Re: [saag] Declining the ifare bof for Chicago)

To: Lakshminath Dondeti <ldondeti at qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Should I* opinions be afforded a special status? (Re: [saag] Declining the ifare bof for Chicago)
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy at cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:31:13 -0700
Authentication-results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=fluffy@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf at ietf.org>
Dkim-signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=607; t=1182216730; x=1183080730; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; z=From:=20Cullen=20Jennings=20<fluffy@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Should=20I*=20opinions=20be=20afforded=20a=20special= 20status?=20(Re=3A=20[saag]=20Declining=20the=20ifare=20bof=20for=20Chicag o) |Sender:=20; bh=aR9CypfCKc1VHDZ/BluAlTeOZ5T31cBYUjFpdELAjJQ=; b=ddkSlBA+tL0UYzXV9iV3XuCSulFz7HIq0mUe1tRA9GDTTZJB5XB8MoPQpeU5PMs/9mQrmCbW hpsPAzNaO4xdQsK8Lhg2pQROF13bJSWnG0KOORLQzQT7ew8cExIuttFU;
In-reply-to: <466EF143.30401@qualcomm.com>
List-help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <tsltzteyvr5.fsf@mit.edu> <466DFCF8.8070305@qualcomm.com> <200706121410.l5CEArEb012556@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <466EF143.30401@qualcomm.com>


On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:17 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:

The idea that somehow the ADs and the IAB are above the rest of the contributors is just wrong. They are judges of consensus when appropriate and the consensus better be independently verifiable

I would be very interested in hearing your ideas on how the IESG should be doing steering or how the IAB should be be doing architecture. Actually, I'd be thrilled to hear about this from anyone but you seem willing to express opinions that are not just apple pie - and that is good if we want to actually change things.

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

References:
- Should I* opinions be afforded a special status? (Re: [saag] Declining the ifare bof for Chicago)
  - From: Lakshminath Dondeti

Prev by Date: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-lemonade-rfc2192bis (IMAP URL Scheme) to Proposed Standard
Next by Date: Re: Reforming the BOF Process (was Declining the ifare bof for Chicago)
Previous by thread: Re: Should I* opinions be afforded a special status? (Re: [saag] Declining the ifare bof for Chicago)
Next by thread: Questions on my role as the 2007-8 nomcom chair and the various discussions on the IETF list
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: Should I* opinions be afforded a special status? (Re: [saag] Declining the ifare bof for Chicago)

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.