Re: First draft of the "plagiarism" paper.

"Gordon Fecyk - Home" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Someone should tell the rest of the Internet that, because that's precisely
> what the general impression is, courtesy of CNET, the Washington Post and
> whoever else picked up their story.

  No one can control what journalists say, and they're lazy.  If
they're talking to one person, then pretty much only that persons name
will be mentioned in an article.  No one else on this list is a CTO,
so one else has an established infrastructure for communicating with
journalists.

  I've talked with Meng about this off-list, and he has re-assured me
that he is talking about the group as a whole, in his interactions
with journalists.  Barring evidence otherwise, I'm inclined to believe
his good intentions.

  Since this appears to be a problem, I think I'll make a strong
recommendation as chair:

	When discussing ASRG-RMX, a proposal should be described as
	"being under consideration by the group", or "being part of
	the solution"

  That still doesn't solve the problem of an article talking about one
solution, to the exclusion of others.  But there's nothing we can do
to control what journalists write.

> This list only seemed to serve Meng's media-whoring.

  Such comments are inappropriate for this list.

> And what ambitions do you, Yakov and Paul have with all of our work, anyway?

  I agreed to work with people here because I thought that we could
communicate, and coordinate our efforts to produce a mutually
acceptable draft.  So far, it's been clear that the main interest lies
in everyone updating their individual drafts.

  I don't have to do this work.  If it becomes too difficult or
contentious, I can always leave, and NO ONES proposal will move
forward.

  I won't speak for Yakov or Paul, either.

  My goal is to have a combined proposal which is satisfactory to all
authors.  If that can't happen, I'm inclined to pull the pieces
together myself, and write my *own* proposal, based on common points
of the draft.  I'll list myself as editor, and everyone else as
contributing authors.  If you don't like the proposal, you can
unsubscribe from this list, and ask that your name be removed from it.

  I don't care which proposal "wins", or if the final document is
composed mostly of one solution.  I don't have to be here, and I can
always let you work out your differences alone.

  I'm also inclined to believe that any document I write will be
accepted as the combined proposal, simply because that's what I was
asked to produce.

  I don't know that I can get one together before IETF, but I'll try.

  Alan DeKok.