Re: RE: GSMP WG Status

--Apple-Mail-2-827408354
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Yes, i find it so sad to realize that the threat to kill the group may 
actually force people to stop the work.  And thus the effort being put 
into closing this group by the ADs is effectively an effort to stop the 
work.

I can only wonder why there is the rush to kill this work group.  it is 
not using up great amounts of resource and it is, in my opinion, doing 
useful work.   Is there only one type of acceptable way of working in 
the IETF now?    I have never read any documentation that describes an 
acceptable level of discussion and participation.

a.


On fredag, dec 12, 2003, at 13:01 Europe/Zurich, Kenneth Sundell wrote:

>
> Bert,
>
> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>
>
>
> Why would "closing the WG" be similar to "cutting the phone line"??
> The mailing list can/will continue to exist.  So you can keep
> talking/emailing (as little as has been done till now, or as much
> as you all think/promise you are going to be doing).
>
> The recent message from Marcus Brunner is one of the possible answers 
> to that question:
>
> Marcus Brunner wrote:
> >Bert,
>
> >We promised to take a look at the MIBs and actually started already 
> but will now immediately stop the effort to get that problem solved.
>
> >Marcus
>
> Regards,
> Ken
>
>
>
> And once the (small) set of people on this list comes to closure
> on their documents, they can still submit them as (individual)
> contributions via RFC-Editor. We will consider them.
>
> Bert
>
>  Regards,
> Weiming
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GSMP mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gsmp
>
>
> -- 
>
> Kenneth Sundell
> Sr. Protocols Architect
> CTO/ATI Strategic Protocols
> Nortel Networks (Sweden)
> ESN 521-3538, Ext IAC+46 8 5088-3538
>
>
>


--Apple-Mail-2-827408354
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Yes, i find it so sad to realize that the threat to kill the group may
actually force people to stop the work.  And thus the effort being put
into closing this group by the ADs is effectively an effort to stop
the work.    


I can only wonder why there is the rush to kill this work group.  it
is not using up great amounts of resource and it is, in my opinion,
doing useful work.   Is there only one type of acceptable way of
working in the IETF now?    I have never read any documentation that
describes an acceptable level of discussion and participation. 


a.



On fredag, dec 12, 2003, at 13:01 Europe/Zurich, Kenneth Sundell wrote:


<excerpt>

Bert,


Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:




<fixed>Why would "closing the WG" be similar to "cutting the phone
line"??

The mailing list can/will continue to exist.  So you can keep

talking/emailing (as little as has been done till now, or as much 

as you all think/promise you are going to be doing).</fixed>


The recent message from Marcus Brunner is one of the possible answers
to that question:


Marcus Brunner wrote:

>Bert,


>We promised to take a look at the MIBs and actually started already
but will now immediately stop the effort to get that problem solved.


>Marcus


Regards,

Ken




<fixed>And once the (small) set of people on this list comes to
closure 

on their documents, they can still submit them as (individual) 

contributions via RFC-Editor. We will consider them.


Bert

</fixed>

<fixed> Regards,

Weiming

</fixed>


<fixed>_______________________________________________

GSMP mailing list

<underline><color><param>1998,1998,FFFE</param>[email protected]

https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gsmp



</color></underline>-- 


Kenneth Sundell

Sr. Protocols Architect

CTO/ATI Strategic Protocols

Nortel Networks (Sweden)

ESN 521-3538, Ext IAC+46 8 5088-3538




</fixed></excerpt>


--Apple-Mail-2-827408354--