Re: [mpowr] Re: process-only participation in WG [Troops vs superpower]

[Alex Conta <[e-mail]>]

Pekka Savola wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Alex Conta wrote:
>

[...]

>> > Why would I (or someone else) want to waste time on something
>> > that I don't even find interesting, while I could use the same time to
>> > contribute technically in other WGs?
>>
>>Back to your question, I will answer with a question:
>>
>>Do you mean that you would accept to be a WG chair, only if you can be 
>>the technical leader, the architect, the editor, and the reviewer of the WG?
> 
> 
> Yes.  I have zero interest in being only a process manager.
> 
> Note the use of _can be_.  If there is someone else editing the
> documents, I probably wouldn't need (or want to) do it.  If there is
> someone else authoring the documents of ideas which need to be written
> down, maybe I wouldn't need to do it.  If everybody else was carefully
> reviewing the products of the WG, maybe I wouldn't need to do it.  If
> there was active, well-informed dialogue in the WG about the technical
> directions, maybe I wouldn't need to try to give some coherence/vision
> about the direction of the WG.
> 

I believe our last paragraph shows convergence.

Alex