[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Telechat Agenda Item: draft-baker-liaisons-00.txt



--On 29. august 2003 11:31 +0200 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> wrote:

[dropped iesg-secretary, no need to generate a mass set of toickets]

So... for ITU-T we have Scott.
And ITU tends to send more and more liaison statements to various
(random?) WGs, sometimes one statement to multiple WGs.
Do we trust that Scott has the energy/time to follow them all and
make sure that responses to such liaisons represent proper consensus?

If we do, then we should make that "expected trust" very clear to
Scott, and then I am fine with it.

Fred, Leslie, Scott, I and a few other folks discussed this in a telechat yesterday. The conclusion there (and it was supported by scott) was that having the liaisons be responsible was the right way, that tools could help, and that this document should be thought of as describing a tool.

Clarifying the expectations of liaisons was very much mentioned.

My experience with the liaisons from ITU regarding ASON and such
showed that Scott was NOT acting responsibly and timely.
Maybe he has more time now.

I would hope so.

Harald