Re: [Pesci-discuss] Growing concerns about PESCI

I really hate to beat a dead horse, but not quite so
much as I hate being misunderstood.

A bit of my message that you chose not to quote and
therefore I assume overlooked:

> On the "-discuss" list, the lead of the design team has asked
> folks to hash through issues, review the document, and contribute
> brain trust. 

Why are people talking on this list?  In a WG, one contributes
to the WG effort, which has a *charter*, and if the design
team fails to listen to the WG, it is (one hopes) fired,
and the WG finds a different way to solve its chartered
problem.  *That's* why we post to WG lists, right?  We're
part of the work.

Here, we're all just yakking.

Which is fine, as long as we *all* remember that.

Some people are here because they care about the outcome,
and will discuss it in any available venue.  Fine.

Some people are *not* here, even though they care about
the outcome, because they know this list is just a "-discuss"
list.

Which is fine, as long as we *all* remember that, too.

Leslie.

Scott W Brim wrote:
> (limiting to pesci-discuss)
> 
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 12:53:53PM -0400, Leslie Daigle allegedly wrote:
> 
>>The big difference is -- there is absolutely no piece of IETF
>>standards process that *requires* that the "design team" listen to any
>>of the points provided on the "-discuss" list.  There is a tacit
>>requirement, in that one presumes the appropriate AD will be recalled if
>>the result is clearly and obviously out of step with what the community
>>asks, but that's a high-risk negative motivation.
> 
> 
> First, there is no piece of IETF standards process that requires a WG
> design team to listen to WG discussion either.  They can reject it, in
> which case their solution will likely be rejected.  Second, since
> PESCI has no power, what is the concern?  
> 
> 
>>So, a genuine question:  is PESCI blurring lines, or does
>>this suggest that we have in fact given up on WGs/our process?
> 
> 
> I don't know that PESCI blurs lines, but it clearly doesn't fit in the
> existing ones.  However, that doesn't have to mean that we have given
> up on our process yet.  I certainly hope not :-).
> 

_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
Pesci-discuss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss