Thomas Nadeau wrote:
run them through the IETF process in parallel.
If a WG can't agree on which problem(s) it want to solve, then there is a
problem, no?
And not sure if Open Source is the solution, unless everybody says: "here is my view
of the problem, let me provide some code for it"
That is precisely how things work in open source; people huddle together to solve
a problem and write code to solve it. There is not much "management" needed
here, nor are there any hard requirements to write problem statements, architectures,
frameworks, etc.. before that process of code construction can begin. That is what I am
getting at: we need to get back to writing more code around here. Code that is used to
build some goal. That is ultimately what defines what can be done. As we iterate though
that process, we arrive at the goal.
Well, wait a minute. That might be how small projects work - but not
big ones, with large impact - like say the Linux Kernel, or Debian, or
Apache. Those projects have policies, procedures, configuration control
processes, authorized committers -- it's not like a change makes it into
the Linux kernel without going through multiple levels of review. Not
to mention processes for bug reporting and patching.
And... I expect that, in the aftermath of Heartbleed, a number of open
source projects are going to be taking another look at release processes.
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra