Keith -- I beg to differ. There are a number of other groups that
have considered taking their work to the IETF, but decided instead to
just use the IETF WG Processes, as described in the relevant RFCs.
They have done this with good results, and I recommend often that
this be done by others. One of the benefits of this approach is
complete avoidance of what is going on here in this mailing list;-)...
So, the answer is, if you want to do it the IETF way, then just use
the WG working rules, and take the results to the IETF when you are
done, if the results look good enough.
The only other reason to take work to the IETF is because you might
draw in some additional useful talents from meeting attendees, and
something then could rub off on your work.
But otherwise, there are no particular inhibitors. IETF even allows
outsiders to post IETF-DRAFTS, which serve to inform the larger IETF
community about such non-IETF work. All this add to the over all
value of the work being done.
So, I read this mass of IETF mail to mean that the OPES work is just
not ready for prime time, and so they should just settle down and get
to work on making it ready for IETF prime time, or just do the work
and be done with it.
The thing I marvel at is the size of the fuss about the question;-)...
Surely the readers of this list will not be offended by a few
messages announcing the work! That would beat the pants off what we
see here now;-)...
Cheers...\Stef
At 10:52 -0400 25/06/01, Keith Moore wrote:
> > In a consensus-oriented decision-making
> > framework everybody with an opinion would work together to
> > find some mutually acceptable (not loved - acceptable)
> > accomodation, whether it's sending the work off to another
> > standards body or modifying the charter and having the
> > work done in the IETF. That hasn't been the ways things
> > have worked during my short time with the IETF - noise is
> > made and the IESG goes off to think about it, work directly
> > with interested parties, and then make a decision. Maybe
> > it's not that meaningful for us to be talking about consensus
> > or direct voting when what we've really got is a republic.
>
>For better or worse, we've never claimed to use consensus-based
>decision-making for deciding whether a working group gets created.
>We do require that there be a significant show of interest for
>doing that group's work, but other than that, our process leaves
>those decisions to IESG and IAB.
>
>One of the presumptions behind the choice of consensus-based
>decision-making even for working groups is that the people
>making the decision are technically competent. Sometimes, the
>people proposing a new working group are unable to demonstrate
>technical competence, which makes their proposals quite dubious
>indeed. In such a case, the right thing to do is to send them
>elsewhere, but you'll never reach consensus with them about that.
>
>Keith
