At 2:28 PM -0700 9/16/05, Dave Crocker wrote:
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?
Possibly I'm wrong in this, but I believe that the public process works when the
community cares about the outcome. The IASA work is done, and I believe
it is a success because enough people cared about the outcome to make it one.
As you noted a few days ago:
Successful IETF work begins by developing support to do the development work
and support to use the output of that work. The work is then done for
development and deployment.
The procedural simplicity and practical utility of this model tend to be
vastly under-appreciated.
I believe the community will care enough about this to get it to work, and I
hope
I'm right, as it will be a requirement whatever process we use to get to a new
change process.
As I said at the beginning of this thread, I believe using PESCI to scope the
work and develop support for is fine. I'm deeply concerned, however, about it
doing the development work itself, as a process in which selected volunteers
replace
the public work of those who will use the outcome.
regards,
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf