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

[Bill Manning <bmanning at ISI.EDU>]

On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 07:52:25AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

	all of those activites indicate particpation to me.
	could you please clarify "non-participant" in the
	context of someone making a contribution (pro or con, 
	independently or in concert with others).

	perhaps you have in mind "card-carrying" IETF members
	who pay their dues and send their employees to meetings?

-- 
--bill

Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).


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




.isi.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l9RNIeda024860
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);
	Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:18:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from bmanning at localhost)
	by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l9RNIeEf024859;
	Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:18:40 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:18:40 -0700
From: Bill Manning <bmanning at ISI.EDU>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20071027231840.GA23714 at boreas.isi.edu>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0710270735240.13665-100000 at egate.xpasc.com>
	<BE07EB04-38C6-4465-B770-EBA05354FB9B at hxr.us>
	<472388E9.8070700 at gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <472388E9.8070700 at gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: bmanning at boreas.isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007
Cc: ietf at ietf.org
Subject: Re: Non-participants [Re: Experimental makes sense for tls-authz]
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org

On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 07:52:25AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

	all of those activites indicate particpation to me.
	could you please clarify "non-participant" in the
	context of someone making a contribution (pro or con, 
	independently or in concert with others).

	perhaps you have in mind "card-carrying" IETF members
	who pay their dues and send their employees to meetings?

-- 
--bill

Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).


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