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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:10:00 -0600

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