Subject: Re: Kudos to MSP IETF hosts & other ramblings

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 08:42:43 -0600

In message <4.2.2.20010323090914.01abfd30@localhost>, Margaret Wasserman writes
:
>
>Not to pick on Jon specifically, but how is this common IETF
>attitude consistent with the IETF's stated commitment to 
>open process?
>
>At 06:52 AM 3/23/01 , Jon Crowcroft wrote:
>
>>also,the wireless access fro mthe pub was inspired! we got really
>>serious bar bof work done without tourists kibbitzing
>
>
We're getting far afield, but "tourist" refers to someone who attends 
and possibly tries to participate in working groups without having done 
their homework.  I've lost track of how many times this week I heard "I 
haven't read the drafts, but..." or "Did you read the draft?  No, 
but..."

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 16:31:26 +0000 (GMT)

> haven't read the drafts, but..." or "Did you read the draft?  No, 

But isn't cross-group fertilisation and wider exposure of work
supposed to be good for the open process and peer review?

(A stupid idea often remains a stupid idea, whether you've read the
draft describing it or not.)

L.

believer in serendipity.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 08:53:38 -0800

>supposed to be good for the open process and peer review?

That's the reason that 'tourists' and others are permitted.  However 
Steve's comment notes that the effect of such openness is not all good.

Personally I believe the positive vastly outweighs the negative, but the 
negative does add a bit to the task of managing a working group.  Process 
management needs to work a bit harder to avoid distractions.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464