----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
To: "Robert Sayre" <sayrer(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Cc: <mat(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 1:38 AM
Subject: Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF? (was:
moving from hosts to sponsors)
I'm much more interested in trying to figure out
how to get WGs to stay on track in the first place and to accept useful
clue from elsewhere.
I maintain that no process will accomplish that. The only way to get a
WG to accept a clue is to demonstrate that their output is irrelevant
by concrete example.
no process can ensure that WGs stay on track, but we can certainly do better
than what we have now.
I think that the single change most likely to keep WGs on track is to ensure
that they do not have a single dominant participant, eg one who is both chair
and
author of key I-Ds. The WGs I see most at risk of going round in circles and/or
producing output that falls short of what is needed are ones such.
Some time ago, I did hear an IESG member talk of this in such a way as to make
me think that this was an understood problem, but nothing seems to have changed
in the two or so years since then.
And, of course, I believe that there is more to good engineering than just
engineering eg the right processes.
Tom Petch.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf