[Pesci-discuss] Re: PESCI, WGs and the consensus process

--On 25. oktober 2005 15:03 -0400 Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com> 
wrote:

>
> And so my question:  why is this different for PESCI?
>
> (Why) is it not applicable for MARID?

It might be. They certainly share the distinction of having failed to work 
out the problem in a WG.
At one point I thought that was what the DEA Directorate was supposed to 
be, but I haven't seen much from it, so I'm not sure what the theory of 
what it's supposed to accomplish is at the moment.

> And, if you see a distinction, come back and make sure the
> PESCI list doesn't fall into being treated as, or thinking
> it is, a WG.

There is one distinction.....

The theory of WGs is that it allows the people who have expertise to 
contribute to get together, while the people who don't have expertise to 
contribute can go do something else until it's result review time.

The subject of spam concerns directly everyone who uses email, and even 
more directly everyone who runs, develops or designs email systems.
The first group is significantly larger than the IETF; the second group has 
an overlap with the IETF, but the size of the overlap is debatable. 
Certainly MARID included a number of "old-time IETFers" as well as a number 
of people who hadn't been active in the IETF before.

In contrast:

The subject of how to run the IETF concerns directly everyone who *works* 
in the IETF - which is by definition, more or less, identical to the IETF 
community.

I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from this difference, but it *is* a 
difference.

                    Harald