"Andrew" == Andrew Newton <andy(_at_)hxr(_dot_)us> writes:
Andrew> On Jan 3, 2005, at 5:03 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
>> Maybe the working group needs to be chartered in phases. The
>> first phase might be figuring out which proposal has clear and
>> strong momentum. I have no idea what the milestones would be
>> for such a thing. I'm just brainstorming.
Andrew> How about we give each proposal with more than 3
Andrew> interested persons its own bof/wg/universe with the
Andrew> instructions not to step on each others toes.
Thanks, I've been through IMPP. I think that you need to have a
strong showing explaining why you need more than one solution.
That said, you may not get community consensus on one solution. I'd
recommend seeing if you can get community consensus to reject any
solutions. If you've rejected all solutions then go back to start
until you have at least one solution you are willing to consider.
Once you have a set of possible solutions, see if there is consensus
on a process to choose a solution. If so, follow that process. If
not, propose several charters to the IESG, understanding that the IESG
is likely to end up approving zero or one of them. During the IETF
wide review you get one last chance to decide whether or not you can
live with what is being proposed.