On Wed, 15 May 2013, Keith Moore wrote:
I'd like to see WGs be more pro-active about periodically summarizing
the salient points of their proposals, determining which parties outside
of the WG are likely to be affected, explicitly soliciting input from
those parties, and explicitly considering that input in their
deliberations. Some WGs do this, but for most WGs I don't think it
happens often enough or formally/transparently enough.
I agree. I'm also participating on nanog-l and other operator lists, and
it's very rarely that a WG solicits feedback in those kinds of forums.
Question is, if larger feedback is requested, a lot of the time a larger
feedback will be generated, and more work needed to go through this
feedback and answer it.
End result might be better, but overall workload would be up, both in
preparation phase and when feedback is coming in. I'm sure end result
would probably be better, but more work would be needed, probably
resulting in less technical work being done.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(_at_)swm(_dot_)pp(_dot_)se