On 1/19/2004 1:01 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
Not all important ideas enter the working group process and emerge
as standards, and the fact that some working group chooses not to
"capture" an document does not make it necessarily unworthy of
preservation. After all, the technical problems evolve, and our
solutions need to evolve too; ideas that did not make it at one
stage may turn out to be important in the future.
Another approach here is to allow for the creation of ad-hoc WGs. That
would provide a cleaner path for tangential documents that don't fit
within existing charters, and would facilitate broader group review of
independent submissions. Speaking for myself, I've written some drafts
that I would have liked to seen progressl, but didn't fit in existing WGs,
and the requirements for new WGs were too stringent to pursue. This latter
issue is also one of the reasons behind the relatively low involvement
from the developing-world community, and exacerbates the feelings of
powerlessness and resentment that end up costing us recovery time fighting
off the well-meaning fools who would make this problem worse by handing
control to organizations with even higher barriers of entry.
--
Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/