>6. An active PWG group and an active IETF group should not share a
>mailing list. It's too easy for the discussions to get confused.
Our list is hosted by a COMPANY who DONATES this service on behalf of
the PWG *and* IPP (and ultimately the consumer) - taking little or no
public credit. The PWG coordinators, officers and participating members
also *all* donate their time and effort toward the purpose of creating
standards to benefit the general public. If the IETF were to host the IPP
mailing list, would there be a charge ($) to the IPP members? If not,
perhaps this is the solution to separating PWG-IPP and IETF-IPP mailing
lists. Otherwise, I hope the IETF would not attempt to enforce a policy
which mandates funds (unto itself) from an otherwise autonomously
supported organization.
Harry Lewis - Speaking entirely as a private individual... as the IETF would
have it.