I think this actually highlights where I am concerned. At 01:43 AM 6/18/2007, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
In most cases, I am simply seeking more transparency and determinism in our operation.
I agree that transparency is a good think. (There are a few cases where that must be sacrificed, but very few, and there needs to be good reason. I applaud the IESG having more detailed minutes, more example, as an improvement I thought was not practical, but works.)
On the other hand, determinism is what I get from a government bureaucracy. Determinism means that the person is required to follow the rules, even whether their judgement says that this is a different case, and needs to be handled differently. BoF formation and working group chartering are examples of places where I want intelligent judgement exercised. As such, the result will not be "deterministic." There should be no set of hoops you can jump through that guarantee a BoF, or a working group.
In fact, as has been observed in other (procedural) contexts, we usually do better when we can have fewer rules (quasi-absolute determinism) and better guidelines which give good understanding of the intent, and leave the leadership room to figure out how the intent is best achieved.
Yes, we should have a clear understanding of what the normal case is, and what one would expect to be the parameters for success or failure. And yes, if the leadership decides not form a working group after a BoF or two, we should expect an understandable explanation. (BoF sponsorship is harder, but still refusal ought to be explained.)
Yours, Joel M. Halpern _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf