given that email is one of the worst ways yet invented to build consensus
and comfort, and that we still need an open consensus building process,
what can we do to make it more scalable?
that's a very good question.
It seems to me that we need to find a way to impose some sort of discipline
on the conversations - in particular, to clearly separate
- recognition and identification of a problem
- determining whether consensus exists for a problem statement
- proposals for a solution
- feedback/comment/critique on such proposals
- determining whether consensus exists for such proposals
separation is probably needed both in message labelling and time. in
other words, it's not enough if each message is clearly labeled according
to its purpose (though this would help immensely); it's also necessary
to discourage indefinite discussion in any of these phases, and to have
clear transitions from one phase to another.
and yet all of this must be done without censorship or the appearance of
censorship.
I suspect email could work as a mechanism except that existing user agents
do not support for the additional content tagging and user interaction
that would be needed. so it would probably need to be prototyped
using a web interface, perhaps with a receive-only email channel
for passive monitoring and archiving.
we would do well to experiment with other means of conducting WG
dialogue. I see no process problems with doing so provided that
such experiments are carefully constructed to ensure visibility
and openness and approved in advance by IESG. a first step might
be to assess the effectiveness of mechanisms that are already
employed by some WGs.
Keith