--On Thursday, 21 December, 2000 20:48 +1100 Robert Elz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suspect that Pete actually meant both, while often both are
> inappropriate there are times when the second form are useful
> to have. Perhaps not when just one or two people make that
> request - that's better handled by a private chat outside the
> WG meeting, but when many people in a WG have read the
> proposal (this almost only ever happens with new proposals),
> and yet still fail to understand it, then it can sometimes be
> useful to have its proponent(s) spend a little time explaining
> the idea in a forum where they can be interrupted when what
> they're saying isn't clear (that's an important part of
> actually getting the understanding - simply going back and
> telling them "we don't understand the draft, rewrite it"
> doesn't usually help).
In particular, much as I hate the idea, we've occasionally had
I-Ds posted that are so confusing and badly written (at least in
English) that it is impossible to detect the basic technical
wisdom or flaws in the design. But it would seem to me that
this would fall within Pete's rule, given some considerable
discretion and flexibility for and by the WG Chair. E.g.,
"this might be important, but what on earth is he talking about"
could easily be an issue within the range of issues that Pete
suggests. And that might, in turn, call for a controlled and
focused presentation of sorts.
I don't see a problem as long as we don't take a general
guideline and turn it into a specific rule that we try to
enforce rigidly. And the progression from "guideline and
discretion" to "rigid and enforced rule" is almost always a
problem (necessary occasionally, but, even then, problematic).
john
