Subject: RE: "too many notes" -- a modest proposal

From: "Gray, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:00:36 -0500

Anthony,

...
--> 
--> Set a rolling monthly quota, then.  Nobody constantly sends a long
--> stream of consistently productive messages.
--> 
--> 

This is simply not true.  All one needs to do is publish a
crucial document relevant to the working groups charter, 
and important to understanding the rest of the work, and
one will be inundated with questions.

The most productive way to deal with questions in a working
group is to answer them publicly on the list.  To avoid the
trip wire, however, most people woul simply answer specific
questions off-line.  That would be BAD.

Debate on work in progress is critical, must be in public
at least much of the time and will usually involve a small 
number of people - authors in particular - who simply must 
participate.  On several occasions, I have seen productive 
debate on critical drafts take more than a month in some
working groups.

--
Eric

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:41:06 +0100

> one will be inundated with questions.

Then maybe message traffic is not a reliable indicator of
"disturbance"; in which case those here who attempt to associate the
two are either naïve or disingenuous.

> participate.

So why is it bad when a small number of people consistently disagree
and post many messages in consequence?  How can you have critical
public debate without lots of message traffic and disagreement?