Re: [mmox] Real Names

My motivation in bringing this up in the first place was to at least have a clue to whom I am speaking.

In saying "business-like", I mean a "polite, fruitful interchange of useful information", which has nothing to do with whether companyX has more (or less) customers, plans, aspirations, bathrooms or virtual regions then another.

Charles

________________________________
From: Robert Gehorsam <RGehorsam@forterrainc.com>
To: missannotoole@yahoo.com; mmox@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 12:15:33 PM
Subject: Re: [mmox] Real Names

Re: [mmox] Real Names 
Ann -

I think the point is that having real names and associations with those names at the right point in time in a standards-forming process enables trust and an understanding of each party's interests.  From that perspective, each party can make a judgement about the statements of others, "good" "bad" "useful" "useless" -whatever.. This not about "greed" or getting rid of SL in any way.  Au contraire, the discussion is about greater inclusion in interoperability definitions.

Robert

-----Original Message-----
From: mmox-bounces@ietf.org <mmox-bounces@ietf.org>
To: mmox@ietf.org <mmox@ietf.org>
Sent: Fri Feb 20 12:09:18 2009
Subject: Re: [mmox] Real Names

This is not about your meeting rooms Jon. You are clearly trying to shove Second Life out of the way and thus Forterra needs to be excluded from the outset.

I move we remove corporations from the process that have blatantly declared a pure greed motivation as Jon/Forterra has already done.

________________________________

From: Jon Watte <jwatte@gmail.com>
To: Charles Krinke <cfk@pacbell.net>
Cc: mmox@ietf.org; "dyerbrookme@juno.com" <dyerbrookme@juno.com>
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 2:48:42 PM
Subject: Re: [mmox] Real Names

Charles,

I would support a "real names only" policy.

I think the businesslike stage will happen if a determination of who actually has a business interest in interoperability is made. I don't know what the IETF rule on "observers" are -- parties who have an interest, but don't actually have a business directly involved in implementing the technology under consideration.

Sincerely,

jw

Charles Krinke wrote:
> Dear David and Meadhbh:
>
> I'm confused about some of the posts from email addresses that are either unsigned or from pseudonyms.
>
> It seems entirely reasonable to me that real names be used in this mailing list to avoid wasting all our time and so that we know who whe are speaking with.
>
> Is there some way in an IETF mailing list or by peer pressure to get this to a more businesslike stage?
>
> Charles Krinke

_______________________________________________
mmox mailing list
mmox@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox