Subject: RE: Rechartering to focus on problem

From: "Allen Lo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:08:27 -0800

It's been made very clear throughout the process that the "new code" is
only a clarification of existing policy, not a change of that policy.
Whatever problems existed before (at the very least, the ones I noted in
my original message) will still exist.  I don't expect we should have
perfect information.  But I think it is fair to try to have the best
information so we can assess whether changes are needed.  I don't
understand what the downside is.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:31 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Rechartering to focus on problem
> 
> I also heard the statement that we should run the new code (i.e. the
> clarified documents) for a reasonable time, such as a year, before
> attempting to judge whether there actually is anything broken
> that needs fixing. [I heard that statement because I made it, but
> people seemed to agree.]
> 
> In other words, rechartering *now* would simply be premature, because
> we have no basis for making judgements about the clarified documents.
> 
>    Brian
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:01:22 -0800

On Wed 3/19/2003 at 7:21 PM, Bruce Perens allegedly wrote: 
> At the Atlanta meeting, I saw Microsoft's attorney, a lady who reports
> directly to Craig Mundie, feeding questions to engineers on her team who
> would ask them as "individuals". This practice has become known in the
> standards community as "Michelle and the Seven Dwarves".

For the record, as one of the Microsoft employees present in the room during the Atlanta meeting, I consider this allegation slanderous. Ok, it is also somewhat refreshing, as it remains me of the debating tactics of the maoist groups during the student assemblies of 60's, but that does not make this type of debating any more acceptable now than it was then.
 
-- Christian Huitema