# rules and regulations

Karen R. Sollins (sollins@lcs.mit.edu)
Wed, 12 Jul 1995 15:06:18 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Roy Fielding: "Re: yet another revision of the charter"
- Previous message: Ronald E. Daniel: "yet another revision of the charter"

    Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 15:06:18 -0400

    Message-Id: <199507121906.PAA04770@lysithea.lcs.mit.edu>

    From: "Karen R. Sollins" <sollins@lcs.mit.edu>

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: rules and regulations

While people are trying to limit us more and more with rules and
regulations, let me ask what it was that I should have done with my
recent note and why we should make it so complicated and restrictive
for ourselves. The situation was that Larry had said that we could not
discuss anything in a session unless there was a draft on the subject.
I originally had thought I would put it out as a draft with just my
name on it, but in fact it speaks directly to the work we are/are
not/should/should not be doing in the URI working group, so it the
thinking came directly from the group's activities. Furthermore, the
intended audience was the group, and I was hoping to use it to get
through Larry's rule about only discussing papers. It won't ever be,
shouldn't be, is not intended to be an RFC, but rather to get people
thinking and talking about some slightly larger issues that I believe
need to be addressed about where standards are and are not appropriate
within the scope of the URI group.

Where in all the rules would this sort of thing fit? And will I have
to wade through lots of rules each time I want to say something to
figure out where it fits? Aren't we perhaps getting a little too
bureaucratic? I hope we can get work done, without spending
significant effort in figuring whether the rules will let us say
things that need to be said.

Karen

- Next message: Roy Fielding: "Re: yet another revision of the charter"
- Previous message: Ronald E. Daniel: "yet another revision of the charter"