At 2:28 PM -0700 9/16/05, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>And since all other public development efforts for process change have frankly
>fallen flat, as Brian has cited, what is your basis for believing that a
>working group charter will somehow make yet-another public process more
>effective at developing a specification for change?
Possibly I'm wrong in this, but I believe that the public process works when the
community cares about the outcome. The IASA work is done, and I believe
it is a success because enough people cared about the outcome to make it one.
As you noted a few days ago:
>Successful IETF work begins by developing support to do the development work
>and support to use the output of that work. The work is then done for
>development and deployment.
>
>The procedural simplicity and practical utility of this model tend to be
>vastly under-appreciated.
I believe the community will care enough about this to get it to work, and I
hope
I'm right, as it will be a requirement whatever process we use to get to a new
change process.
As I said at the beginning of this thread, I believe using PESCI to scope the
work and develop support for is fine. I'm deeply concerned, however, about it
doing the development work itself, as a process in which selected volunteers
replace
the public work of those who will use the outcome.
regards,
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
