Re: [Seamoby] Re: IP Paging Protocol

I think that WG chairs should not expect WG members to react more than
what we observed so far. I reacted and pointed to one important problem
during the meeting and continued to argue on the mailing list. The other
WG members also have spoken out.
  WG members are kind people, we do not shout and leave the meeting room
slamming the door.
  WG members prefer to kindly indicate the peaceful solution which is two
fold, never again make such assessment irregularities and
>We believe that the process of creating an IP paging protocol can be
>> substantially improved, and that the establishment in Seamoby of a
>> design team comprising the authors of the current proposal and few
>> other relevant parties is the only realistic solution (as it has
>> already happened in other IETF WGs).

Regards,

James Kempf wrote:

>
>
>
> If there was an outcry on the list from others, I would be more
> inclined to view the complaints seriously. In the past,
> the Seamoby list has not been short of people who
> were ready to jump out at the first sign of a technical
> controversy and express their opinions. I have not
> seen a single one of those people, either in SLC
> or on the list, stand up publically and say that they did
> not agree with the decision.
>
> I've already agreed that the the decision process
> by which the selection was made was not
> transparent. I have some text that I have
> written which I hope will render more
> transparency to the process,  but I have
> not yet been able to get a time to
> talk with Pat and Allision about it.
> If you can just be patient, I will
> post the text as soon as we have
> had a chance to review it. Let's see if there
> are any complaints from neutral
> sources about the decision after
> I've posted that text.
>
>             jak
>
> _______________________________________________
> --

Behcet

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
Seamoby@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby