Longer or more meetings?

[Margaret Wasserman]

I suppose I should stop trying to be subtle... I infuriate my
friends, and others probably don't get it. :-)/2

I'm not sure that we have a shared concept of what "success" is...
Everyone keeps talking about "relevance".  Now, while it is obvious
that we don't want to work on things that are irrelevant, how are
we defining "relevance"?

It seems, from observation, that we define "relevance" as
"commercial success".  And, it is obvious to me that a large
corporate gorilla has a lot more influence on corporate success
than a one-man consulting firm...

I actually prefer the criteria for success that are outlined in our
current processes:

         - open
         - fair
         - technically sound
         - useful

But, folks do seem to be awfully focused on "relevance" these days...
What, exactly, does it mean if if doesn't mean "implemented by
large vendors"?

Margaret


At 09:52 AM 12/7/2002 -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> writes:
>
> > > This sort of assumes a view of IETF as a place for vendors to
> > > collaborate on deciding what a standard should be.
> >
> > large vendors, as it places small ones, startups, ... at a serious
> > disadvantage, as well as the users and researchers about whom you
> > are justifiably worried.
>
>Quite so. I didn't nmention that because Margaret's post suggested
>that a vendors influence SHOULD be connected to their size/market
>throw weight.
>
>-Ekr
>
>--
>[Eric Rescorla                                   ekr@rtfm.com]
>                 http://www.rtfm.com/