[apps-discuss] We have no lambs (was: Applicability Statements)

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pete,
At 13:48 11-05-2011, Pete Resnick wrote:
>Smiley face understood but:
>
>We have no lambs in this organization. Or wolves. Or kings. Or 
>better yet, we are *all* all of those things.
>
>I asked for thoughts. I take them seriously. What makes the IETF a 
>good place to work is that it's full of people much smarter than me.

That's how I read the threads that you opened.  It would be good if a 
broader audience throws in their two cents.  In plain English, read 
the thoughts as coming from Pete, the individual who does not have 
any IETF track record, and tell him what you think.  The IETF does 
not work when people remain silent.

At 13:37 11-05-2011, John C Klensin wrote:
>So, I wouldn't have said "useless".  I might have said "of very
>limited value in helping the IESG with its determination of
>consensus about technical quality and adequacy of review".

That is the politically correct way of stating it.  It may help some 
people understand what the IESG would like.  However, sentences like 
that are against IETF best practices. :-)

Pete has taken a rather unusual approach.  I would qualify it as 
open.  It is to encourage discussion on an equal footing.

Regards,
-sm