Non-participants [Re: Experimental makes sense for tls-authz]

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>]

On 2007-10-28 06:36, Andrew Newton wrote:
> On Oct 27, 2007, at 11:00 AM, David Morris wrote:
> > Well for starters, the drive-by hummers have to sit through the session
> > and be present for the discussion (note I intentionally did not say
> > listen). They have to demonstrate enough interest in the IETF process to
> > actually pay the costs of attending the session.
>
> Most of the drive-by hummers have their head buried in their email or 
> other laptop work, so the expense they run for looking up to hum once or 
> twice isn't at all onerous.  At least in this case, the drive-by 
> emailers had to spend some thought cycles on the email they composed.

[By the way, when I find myself in a WG meeting I'm not prepared
for, I often have my head buried in the drafts being discussed,
so as to be able to understand the issues. Don't assume that a head
buried in a laptop is always doing email.]

Firstly, apparent consensus in a WG face to face meeting is *not*
consensus of the WG, which must be confirmed on the mailing list.

Secondly, WG chairs and the responsible AD are well able to notice
that a meeting has been packed, and to interpret any straw poll
or hum accordingly.

I think the process has proved to be rather resistant to packing of
meetings, written statements distributed in the meeting room, and
back-channel campaigns to have non-participants commenting on drafts
they haven't read. None of which means we should *ignore* input from
non-participants, but we should not be ashamed of making a judgement
of its weight or lack thereof.

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