RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim Minutes

["Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net>]

Dave Nelson [mailto://d.b.nelson@comcast.net] writes:

...

> > - Are you now convinced of "interest"? (and if not, or
> > partially, then on what grounds given the rather abundant
> > amount of contributors, reviewers, discussion?)
> 
> The level of interest required to accept a work item in the RADEXT WG
> is, as
> you say, an "abundant" number of reviewers, not including the authors.
> There is no hard rule, but half a dozen would be a good threshold.  

Not counting the authors, 19 individuals have posted on _any_ topic on this
list this year; discounting IESG members and WG Chairs (official and de
facto) brings the number down to 13, most of whom sent only one or two
messages (mostly regarding their own drafts).  So it sounds like you are
saying that about half the active WG members have to sign up to review the
draft, is that correct?  It's interesting how high the bar is set in this
case given that apparently _no one_ has ever actually reviewed
draft-ietf-radext-design (currently being emphatically pushed for
publication despite the number of egregious technical errors discovered upon
a reasonably close reading thereof).  

...


--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>