In my experience, when architects of a standard are not closely
involved in implementations (e.g. on the same mailing list), the
implementations diverge from the standard.
Bob Herriot
> From moore@cs.utk.edu Tue Nov 18 12:22:47 1997
> X-Uri: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
> From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
> To: Jay Martin <jkm@underscore.com>
> Cc: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>,
> "Zehler,
> Peter" <pzehler@channels.mc.xerox.com>, IPP@pwg.org,
> ippdev@pwg.org
> Subject: Re: IPPDEV> Re: IPP> Re: IPP developers mailing list established
> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:53:38 EST."
> <3471E432.BC16679D@underscore.com>
> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:19:58 -0500
> Sender: ippdev-owner@pwg.org
> Content-Length: 959
> X-Lines: 21
>
> > I'm not sure what you mean about "serious problems" in your above
> > statement. Many, many folks monitor the IPP list for a number of
> > different reasons, not all having to do with the technology itself.
>
> There's no problem with people monitoring a WG list.
> There is a problem if the WG list is deliberately dumbed down
> to faciliate such monitoring. The purpose of the WG list is to do
> technical work, and such work is best accomplished when a high
> percentage of those doing the work are implementors.
>
> > As the official list-keepers for the PWG, we here at Underscore
> > monitor all changes to all PWG-oriented mailing lists. All too
> > many times we see folks unsubscribe from the IPP when a sudden
> > rash of messages are posted that deal with some very fine technical
> > point.
>
> That's a good sign! The list should be open to anyone, of course,
> but most people who aren't interested in doing the work will eventually
> get bored and unsubscribe.
>
> Keith
>