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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf