Groups like NomCom and IPR have taken on tasks and done them, with community
discussion of their charters and with community discussion as their documents
went through the process. They are process change groups, and they work.
Ted,
Groups like nomcom and ipr have not had a multi-year crisis with a history of
extensive activity and little measurable improvement to show for it. (How long
ago was Yokohama?)
So, Ted, how long should be allocated for this process to define a charter to
define a working group that will define process changes?
How long to get community acceptance for it?
How long to get a resulting working group to produce something useful?
And since all other public development efforts for process change have frankly
fallen flat, as Brian has cited, what is your basis for believing that a
working group charter will somehow make yet-another public process more
effective at developing a specification for change?
Design teams design solutions, not plans for solutions or charters for working
groups. If the design team knows enough about its topic -- especially when
the topic is complex and not all that well understood -- it is usually a far
more effective vehicle for solution specification than is the working group
framework.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf