On 11/29/12 2:32 PM, George, Wes wrote:
[WEG] I'm sorry if it was unclear, but I am not saying that
*everything* must be specified, nor do I think anyone should
undertake an effort to even identify all of the things that are
currently unspecified. I'm pointing out a specific area of confusion
and inconsistency that has been created by something that is
unspecified and asking "should we specify?"
I'm not very clear on what problem you're trying to solve, or
why it's a problem. I've seen some stuff around working
group draft adoption that I don't like very much but am not
sure that I'd identify those as a "problem," per se, or that
they would be done better with yet another process document.
Lo, those many years ago I co-chaired (with Avri Doria) the
"problem" working group. It was a very bad experience, and
I think left me convinced that dorking around with formalizing
process stuff should absolutely not be done unless someone's
identified a specific problem that interferes with getting
documents out. Process we just don't happen to like is not
a problem.
Melinda