On 30-May-20 06:34, Pete Resnick wrote: > On 29 May 2020, at 9:37, Eric Rescorla wrote: > >>> 6\. To deliver a toolchain that is up-to-date and well regarded by >>> users. >> >> This seems in conflict with "evidence-led". Suppose the toolchain >> was well-regarded by users but empirically less efficient than >> other toolchains. There are people here with experience of multiple tool chains for document drafting/review/approval/publishing processes. And there are people here with experience of other SDOs' processes for creating/running/destroying WGs, and of handling very large volume email or other interactions. Everybody is an expert now on Meetecho vs Webex vs Zoom. So although it might be more work than the results would justify, I think comparisons are very possible. Brian > I've got no problem with "efficient" being added to list of "up-to-date" > and "well-regarded", but I wouldn't want to see "well-regarded" removed > (at least with out something else that captures the right sense). We > could get a data-driven result that using a particular toolchain is > incredibly efficient, but if people are unwilling to use it for (perhaps > irrational) reasons of not liking the look-and-feel of it, or even just > because it uses a new way of thinking that people are resistant to, that > weighs against trying to deliver it. I think it's OK for those > principles to be in tension and the LLC has to use its judgment to > figure out what's best (in consultation with the community of users, of > course). But we still want to take that "regard" into account. > > And like I said, a different term than "well-regarded" that captures my > concern is perfectly OK. > > pr >
