On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Eric A. Hall wrote: > Another approach here is to allow for the creation of ad-hoc WGs. That > would provide a cleaner path for tangential documents that don't fit > within existing charters, and would facilitate broader group review of > independent submissions. Speaking for myself, I've written some drafts > that I would have liked to seen progressl, but didn't fit in existing WGs, > and the requirements for new WGs were too stringent to pursue. This latter > issue is also one of the reasons behind the relatively low involvement > from the developing-world community, and exacerbates the feelings of > powerlessness and resentment that end up costing us recovery time fighting > off the well-meaning fools who would make this problem worse by handing > control to organizations with even higher barriers of entry. Maybe you have a common(?) fallacy that once a WG is established, you start to magically a better and broader review of the drafts. Often this is not the case. But the core point is, I think, how can one attract the reviewers or people in general to read and send feedback on an idea which has been documented in an Internet-draft. This is obviously a difficult problem, as everybody probably thinks their work is special. One thing which *might* make it easier, for the drafts which relate to existing technologies, is if there were "maintenance teams" for the core protocols, with mailing-lists one could spam one's ideas to, hoping for feedback from the people interested in a subject. Not sure if that would help significantly though.. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings