Hello Andrew,
[The aside]
This is yet another process document that, no matter how
much the text protests otherwise, will probably be used as a club in
some future contentious WG discussion to try to beat opponents into
submission.
At the moment we don't seem to be able to move for fear of clubbing WGs at some
future unspecified time.
And at the same time we have WG chairs saying "please give us a bit of general
guidance on some topics".
So we might handle this by putting it on a wiki instead, but I think the
community like to be able to read about "stuff". And our mode of publication
(to date) has been the RFC not the wiki.
I'm in general in favor of encouraging people to have some backbone if they
feel they are being clubbed, and not to cry out that they might be clubbed in
the future.
I think I would have a different view if the I-D was proposing rules and
regulations without fully examining the consequences.
[And the technical bit]
In section 5.2, there is this:
a single, strong specification. The detailed discussions to merge
are better held in a design team than amidst the dynamics of an open
working group mailing list.
I think it would be better to alter that to "…to merge are often
better held…".
That is a good suggestion, IMHO.
Thanks,
Adrian