Subject: Re: [seamoby] WAS [seamoby-paging] Moving Forward now Now Procedures...

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:17:16 -0800 (PST)

Phil,
The message wasn't meant to exclude anyone. I see you have forwarded it
to the general list, so there is no need for me to. It was posted to
the paging list because, not suprisingly, people on that list are mostly
interested in paging. And there seemed to be enough traffic on the
main list.

The point of the announcement was to, hopefully, avoid a full-fledged
Draft War between multiple proposals for paging protocols, such as
is and has occured in other groups. If we can agree on a collaborative
approach from the outset, I think we can probably iterate to a quick
conclusion because nobody will have any ego investment to defend in "their"
protocol. Everybody's name gets on the draft, and everybody's ideas
are considered by the group. 

		jak

>X-Authentication-Warning: charizard.diameter.org: majordomo set sender to 
[email-masked] using -f
>X-Lotus-FromDomain: 3COM
>From: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:10:00 -0600
>Subject: [seamoby] WAS [seamoby-paging] Moving Forward now Now Procedures...
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>
>
>
>James (and fellow whalers (we... jammin, we... jammin)),
>
>I felt Jame's "announcement" should have been made on the general list.  I 
know,
>I relinquished
>my chair position.  However, I have some procedural concerns with design teams.
>I feel that
>we could get into a "clique" or "in-crowd" thing pretty easily with them and
>this is not what the
>IETF is about.  I want to by all means avoid this situation.  I would like Pat
>to consider
>mandating that whenever we (SeaMoby) phase transition from one phase to another
>like from
>problem statements to requirements for example, that  the announcement of team
>formation
>and call for new leadership be made to the general list.  I would like to also
>hear some yeas
>or nays from the list on this.  I understand the momentum, and their is nothing
>stopping
>existing participants from continuing to participate in their same roles.  I
>just don't want anyone
>to feel excluded from participation.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Phil  (I hope you like Jammin too...)
>
>---------------------- Forwarded by Phil Neumiller/MW/US/3Com on 02/22/2001
>03:59 PM ---------------------------
>
>Please respond to James Kempf <[email-masked]>
>
>Sent by:  James Kempf <[email-masked]>
>
>
>To:   [email-masked]
>cc:    (Phil Neumiller/MW/US/3Com)
>Subject:  [seamoby-paging] Moving Forward
>
>
>
>Folks,
>
>I'd like to suggest that we try to keep the design team intact going forward
>after IETF 50 so that we can come up with a paging protocol. I think we pretty
>much have concensus in the design team and on the mailing list that it is
>needed, we have yet to convince the working group, but I think the
>arguments are compelling enough that we should be able to succeed.
>
>I know some of you have done drafts in the past on paging, and I've
>been working on something myself, but in order to avoid dualing drafts,
>I'd like to start right away on a collaborative approach. I'm willing
>to continue as design team leader if people feel that's OK, but I
>would like to get a document editor. Alternatively, if somebody else
>wants to step in as design team leader, I'm willing to continue as
>document editor. I also think that we should try to get the name of
>everybody who contributes on a protocol document. I don't think it
>was as much an issue on the problem statement draft because that
>will either be informational or perhaps not even go to RFC status,
>but a protocol doc that is standards track is meant to endure and
>people who contribute need to be recognized.
>
>          jak
>
>
>
>

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:24:49 -0800 (PST)

Darn, I put aside one thread, and it's the one that needs attention :(

See my comments below.

Phil says....

> >my chair position.  However, I have some procedural concerns with design
> teams. >I feel that
> >this is not what the >IETF is about.  I want to by all means avoid this
> situation.
Design teams are not new at the IETF. They are typically put together when
there is LOTS of work to be done in very short time.

No one has ever been excluded from any design teams. In fact, I run two of the
lists myself, and I have seen many people subscribe after they were put
together. The information is available on the web page, which is pointed to by
the WG web page. The information is also available in the main mailing list
archives. If someone feels excluded at this point, he/she really hasn't worked
hard to find out how to subscribe to the lists.

>  I would like Pat >to consider
> >mandating that whenever we (SeaMoby) phase transition from one phase to
> another >like from
> >problem statements to requirements for example, that  the announcement of
> team >formation
> >and call for new leadership be made to the general list.  I would like to
> also >hear some yeas
> >or nays from the list on this.  I understand the momentum, and their is
> nothing >stopping
> >just don't want anyone >to feel excluded from participation.

I completely agree. No one should be excluded. Whether or not we keep design
teams moving forward is up to the WG. I agree that the "moving forward" e-mail
needs to be on the main list, but I have yet ot send such an e-mail on any
list, since we need our ADs blessing of the problem statements before we
proceed. Once we get the OK, such an announcement will be made on the main
list.

In fact, once the problem statements are done, we could dismantle the separate
mailing lists. However, please be careful for what you wish for, since it is
most likely that all e-mails for all areas being worked on will immediately
flood your inbox, regardless of whether you want to work on such an area.

Let's discuss this some more. I want to make sure that we hear from other WG
members as well.

> interested in paging. And there seemed to be enough traffic on the

And the e-mail Jim sent wasn't a "sanctioned" moving forward e-mail. As I
understand it, he simply wanted to get people interested to start looking at
what to do next. This is not sanctioned WG work items at this point, but it
sure makes sense to get people working together, as opposed to tons of
individual I-Ds, and then design teams to put them together again... (see
where I am going?)

> are considered by the group. 

I like this approach, but just be warned that your efforts MAY be wasted if we
do not get the OK to move forward on this particular work item.

We also cannot stop people from contributing individual I-Ds. Again, I want to
see how the WG feels about our next steps.

PatC