Re: how to deal with liaison statements

[Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>]

I think this actually resonates with one of my concerns
with the draft. 
I 100% support the proposals to work on making sure that
liaison statements that come in get attention by the appropriate
people in the right timeframe.

But, as currently phrased, the draft implies that
we invite communication by liaison (not Internet-Draft
and discussion) which a) isn't the right tone (as far as
I understand how we work) and b) could become a pretty
serious denial of service, in that liaisons are priority
interrupts.

So, I think I'm saying -- I'm all for working on the process
problem we know we have (timely actions).

Leslie.

Alex Zinin wrote:
> Thursday, March 13, 2003, 1:33:17 PM, Scott Bradner wrote:
> ...
>
> > I think the high order bit is that they have seen too many of
> > their messages go into a black hole - never to be discussed in a WG
> > even when they are asking basically 'can we use your protocol rather
> > than invent another' and they would kike to see if there is a 
> > way to at least be assured of not getting ignored
>
> Another high-order bit that I got from the discussion is that they get
> surprised when they say something and nobody starts running around
> pushing for work to be done. The point here is that we don't start
> work when someone tells us to, we start it when there is enough
> community interest to take it on, and if they want us to do stuff,
> they need to go around and build that interest, just like they have to
> build consensus to support a given proposal they bring...
>
> Alex

--

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
    Yours to discover."
                               -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------