Subject: Re: WG Deluge & Focus

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:16:01 -0500

For the sake of brevity, I'll snipped comments from Bruce's note re: 
Doug's note so I can reply.

First off, thanks to both Bruce and Doug for recognizing the issue and 
taking steps to fix it.  Wonderful.

Ok.  Bruce comments and my replies:

Bruce: "I suspect that part of the reason we only have a handful of active 
posters is that many folks are overwhelmed by the volume in spurts (near 
IETFs) and by the digressions"

Me:  Absolutely!

Bruce: "Should we ask the WGs Co-chairs to be ref's in keeping us focused 
in threads?  Is there another way to achieve this so we do make forward 
progress?  I think the starting point should be first the poster 
themselves followed by the 'creator' of the thread followed by the WG and 
the co-chairs but thats just my own feelings on it. "

me:  Bob and I have actually had this very conversation.  We'll try to act 
as Ref's but the list should know that Bob and I try to stay on the 
sidelines so we don't inhibit conversation.  I have sent a couple of notes 
asking for brevity - somewhat ignored, I might add.  I've also sent a few 
comments about playing nice in the sandbox.  Most of the time we do a good 
job at that - I've seen some of the other lists. 8-)

Bruce: "Concensus is goodness (although Ive yet to see much of that in 
postings)"

Me:  Neither have I seen much in the way of concensus (at least not in the 
wording - may have been buried among word debris...ah, brevity again!

Bruce: "Compatability issues MUST be preserved and to do any other work on 
stuff that breaks it is just a waste of time and an excercise in idiocy. A 
builder does not put in the flooring and wall board if the house 
foundation and framing needs to be redone... (At least the good ones 
dont!)"

Me:  I agree

---

From: Bob Mahoney <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:38:16 -0500

Just to assert publicly: Pat and I are in complete agreement.

(Regarding brevity: if you were required to make your points under a 
very low limit on number of messages or number of characters, could 
you?   Imagine some oppressively low limit, and then try to get your 
point across.  It's small-scale, but will be much appreciated by all, 
I assure you.  :-)

-Bob