Re: [Seamoby] Re: IP Paging Protocol

Behcet,

I will do no such thing.

Please answer my question.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Behcet Sarikaya" <behcet.sarikaya@alcatel.com>
Cc: <seamoby@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Re: IP Paging Protocol

> First of all can you please announce that there is no WG draft?
> Then maybe we can discuss how the design team should be structured and
> who leads it.
>
> Regards,
>
> James Kempf wrote:
>
> >So, what is the difference between:
> >
> >a)  Forming an open design team and anyone in the working group
> >having the right to participate with Marco as the editor of the
> >document,
> >
> >and:
> >
> >b) The situation we are in now?
> >
> >Why should the design team be restricted to authors of the
> >existing protocols?
> >
> >            jak
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Behcet Sarikaya" <behcet.sarikaya@alcatel.com>
> >To: <seamoby@ietf.org>
> >Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 4:35 PM
> >Subject: 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
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Behcet
>
>
>

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