----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Moore" <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> To: "Robert Sayre" <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: <mat@xxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 1:38 AM Subject: Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF? (was: moving from hosts to sponsors) > > > I'm much more interested in trying to figure out > > > how to get WGs to stay on track in the first place and to accept useful > > > clue from elsewhere. > > > > I maintain that no process will accomplish that. The only way to get a > > WG to accept a clue is to demonstrate that their output is irrelevant > > by concrete example. > > no process can ensure that WGs stay on track, but we can certainly do better than what we have now. > I think that the single change most likely to keep WGs on track is to ensure that they do not have a single dominant participant, eg one who is both chair and author of key I-Ds. The WGs I see most at risk of going round in circles and/or producing output that falls short of what is needed are ones such. Some time ago, I did hear an IESG member talk of this in such a way as to make me think that this was an understood problem, but nothing seems to have changed in the two or so years since then. And, of course, I believe that there is more to good engineering than just engineering eg the right processes. Tom Petch. > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf