Re: [Seamoby] Re: IP Paging Protocol

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
>

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