Hi -
From: "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Cc: <dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 9:47 AM
Subject: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF? (was:
moving from hosts to sponsors)
...
My question is - do others see this as a problem, and (without trying
to propose a concrete solution that will be seen as a threat) is there
a shared sense that this is a problem and general willingness to try
new ways of conducting our discussions?
...
I agree with much of your analysis, but I think the problem goes beyond
just the ways in which we conduct our discussions. The process of
conducting BOFs and developing WG charters has a way of framing
discussion, that, although it serves to keep things focused, may also
marginalize attempts to look at the problem from a broader architectural
perspective. If we could count on perfect architectural foresight in the
formulation of WG charters and deliverables, this would not be a serious
problem. In some cases, however, I think working groups have carefully
engineered a solution to a problem very different from the one which
originally served to motivate the work, and may even have completely
missed the mark, all while satisfying their charters to the letter.
That said, I think there is much to learn about what does and does not
work, both from experience in other organizations as well as from what
has been tried by various WGs. I expect, however, that we'll find that
there is no "one size fits all" solution. I hope we end up with a "toolkit"
of techniques appropriate to different sizes and shapes of WGs for
doing new work, revisions, maintenance, integration and retrofitting.
Randy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf