Re: [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair) roles - MPOWR WG proposal
Steve Coya <scoya@foretec.com> Tue, 16 December 2003 16:36 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19])
by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22580
for <mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:36:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org)
by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWIB2-0001rS-6M
for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:36:04 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost)
by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGGa4YC007148
for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:36:04 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWIB2-0001rD-0n
for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:36:04 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22546
for <mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:36:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
id 1AWIB0-0001YL-00
for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:36:03 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
id 1AWIAz-0001Xs-00
for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:36:02 -0500
Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org)
by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWIAz-0001Xp-00
for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:36:01 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org)
by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20)
id 1AWIAz-0001od-Mh; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:36:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWHcW-0008Ca-Qq
for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:00:24 -0500
Received: from tigger (scoya-desktop.cnri.reston.va.us [10.27.16.2])
by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA21216;
Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:00:13 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:58:41 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
From: Steve Coya <scoya@foretec.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
cc: MPowr <mpowr@ietf.org>, solutions@alvestrand.no
Subject: Re: [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair) roles - MPOWR
WG proposal
In-Reply-To: <p0610070cbc03a6fb3741@[216.43.25.67]>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.3.96.1031216105353.1528B-100000@tigger>
X-X-Sender: scoya@odin.cnri.reston.va.us
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr>,
<mailto:mpowr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results <mpowr.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:mpowr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpowr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr>,
<mailto:mpowr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on
ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
>>So in your case: If you had a reasonable size reviewer committee (not >>just 1 or 2 people), that means that you've got a significant number >>of folks who think there are real problems with the document. Perhaps it's the _nature_ of the review (and reviewer comments) - along with the instructions conveyed to the reviewers (assuming/hoping instructions were included). For example, a review which points out that the specification is in direct conflict with an existing protocol (i.e. architectural or incompatible) should be seriously considered and addressed, as opposed to an opinion, for example, that a byte count should start at one instead of zero - which can be considered and ..... "respectfully declined" That's just my thought - I could be wrong. Steve _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr
- [Mpowr] RE: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair… Margaret.Wasserman
- [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair… Pete Resnick
- [mpowr] RE: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair… Margaret.Wasserman
- [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair… Ted Hardie
- [mpowr] RE: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair… Margaret.Wasserman
- [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair… James Kempf
- [mpowr] RE: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair… Scott Bradner
- [mpowr] RE: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair… Scott Bradner
- [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair… Pete Resnick
- [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair… Henrik Levkowetz
- [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair… Melinda Shore
- [mpowr] RE: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair… Margaret.Wasserman
- [mpowr] RE: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair… john.loughney
- [mpowr] RE: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair… john.loughney
- [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair… Keith Moore
- [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair… James Kempf
- [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair… Dave Crocker
- [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair… Dave Crocker
- [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair… Pete Resnick
- Re: [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (c… James Kempf
- Re: [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (c… Pete Resnick
- Re: [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (c… James Kempf
- Re: [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (c… Pete Resnick
- Quality Control and that nasty A word (was: Re: [… James Kempf
- Re: [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (c… Steve Coya
- Re: [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (c… Dave Crocker
- Re: [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (c… Keith Moore
- Re: Quality Control and that nasty A word (was: R… Pete Resnick
- [mpowr] Re: Quality Control and that nasty A word Lucy E. Lynch
- Re: Quality Control and that nasty A word (was: R… James Kempf
- [mpowr] Re: Quality Control and that nasty A word James Kempf
- Re: Quality Control and that nasty A word (was: R… James Kempf
- Re: Quality Control and that nasty A word (was: R… Dave Crocker
- [mpowr] Re: Quality Control and that nasty A word James Kempf
- Re: [mpowr] Re: Quality Control and that nasty A … Pekka Savola
- [mpowr] Troops versus superpower Alex Rousskov
- [mpowr] Re: Quality Control and that nasty A word Alex Conta
- Re: [Solutions] Re: [mpowr] Re: Quality Control a… Alex Conta
- Re: [Solutions] Re: [mpowr] Re: Quality Control a… David Meyer
- Re: [Solutions] Re: [mpowr] Re: Quality Control a… Alex Rousskov
- Re: [Solutions] Re: [mpowr] Re: Quality Control a… David Meyer
- Re: [Solutions] Re: [mpowr] Re: Quality Control a… Alex Conta
- Re: [Solutions] Re: [mpowr] Re: Quality Control a… Alex Rousskov
- Re: [Solutions] Re: [mpowr] Re: Quality Control a… David Meyer
- Re: [Solutions] Re: [mpowr] Re: Quality Control a… David Meyer
- Re: Quality Control and that nasty A word (was: R… Dave Crocker
- Re: Quality Control and that nasty A word (was: R… Dave Crocker
- [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair… Alex Conta
- Re: [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (c… Alex Conta
- [mpowr] Re: Quality Control and that nasty A word Alex Conta