On 4/20/2014 10:15 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Right. The alternate defense against a WG charter that allowed for anything
more than wordsmithing was to insist that proponents of a working group go do
the work of a working group to evaluate the protocol and figure out if it
needed any changes before such a working group would be chartered.
Defense is an interest choice of words. It tends to imply an obligation
to start a working group even when there is no work known to be needed.
Working groups are expensive. The costs they incur are justified only
when there is known to be a need.
Requiring clear statements about the need is not 'defensive'; it is
merely being professional and responsible.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net