Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
(...) agreed
It would bring global health to the process, I would say, even if the public participation was restricted to voice and lobbying from the outside, with no vote in the process.
Yes - indeed. The idea is to have more public participation (vote early and often, as they say in Chicago :) in the process w/o the EG having to expand to include only the mildly interested, and w/o having constraints like an NDA placed on the mildly interested participants.
One things I'll say in their defense of general spec lead behavior is that a JSR is a *lot* of work - I have garnered great respect in general for those leading JSR's to successful conclusions, so it's hard to want to dictate a project management style...I agree, and it is precisely the kind of work that I'm very bad at doing (except maybe for detecting incoherent documents, or things like this), so I would not take this role eagerly. I also respect them a lot.
But a lot of the work is political, making "minimum agreements", unblocking issues, etc. Judicious use of open lists to help promote general approaches to problems, to "test the water", or to try to get feedback or pressure to pass political blockings could *ease* it, rather than the opposite. (I'm quite sure that Stefano, for instance, would know how to manage a JSR this way :-)
Regards,
Santiago
geir
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
