- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 17:47:12 -0600
- To: Andre van der Hoek <andre@bigtime.cs.colorado.edu>
- CC: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Andre van der Hoek wrote: > > I should also clarify that the current spec has absolutely no special > > status. Any spec submitted to the group will be given equal weight. The > > only power the current spec has is that it has proven useful in > > clarifying issues and helping the group to build consensus. > > I do not understand. I thought the process was not to have every member of > the group submit a spec, but to jointly work towards a consensus as you said. > Part of that is discussing the existing spec, which I am trying to do. I do > absolutely not have any intent to write a rival spec. There are many things > good about the existing spec, it does not make sense to propose a new one. > Rather, I would like to improve on the existing one, which is all that I am > trying to do. Am I misunderstanding the process now? Not at all. To put it more strongly: the editor of an IETF document is at the service of the working group. If a comment is raised, it's the duty of the editor to write it down or explain why not. If the explanation isn't satisfactory, discussion continues, moderated by the chair. Telling people to "go write your own" is not cool, per IETF process[1] and culture. [1] ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2026.txt -- Dan Connolly, W3C Architecture Domain Lead <connolly@w3.org> +1 512 310-2971 http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ PGP:EDF8 A8E4 F3BB 0F3C FD1B 7BE0 716C FF21
Received on Friday, 14 March 1997 18:48:39 UTC