On 1 September 2014 20:15, Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
Dave,
On 9/1/14, 8:38 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
So we'll only discuss ideas that are written up as drafts, and we'll
only discuss them in a working group, and we'll only create a working group
around drafts that have traction, and we'll only consider a draft to have
traction if there's discussion, and we'll only discuss them in a working
group, and ...
Only is a bit much, but the point was that a number of important documents
DIDN'T use the WG process, and it turned into a mess.
I don't disagree, I'm just saying that if you enforce a set of mutually
exclusive conditions, you end up with an exclusive system. I'd suggest we
should be aiming to make it easy to bring new ideas to the table, even when
this does cause some noise.
The problem is that even the area-level working groups have to positively
adopt new drafts. I don't know the numbers of ad-sponsored, and pre-WG
drafts there are, but if they were effectively forced onto an area-level
working group as a working group of last resort, and would just die on the
vine if there was no interest, then there would always be a discussion
venue.
And no, I'm not saying that's a perfect solution.
Dave.