Hi Dave,
At 10:43 05-01-2014, Dave Crocker wrote:
I'm not sure how to have the text make this point more clearly in the draft.
Thanks for the explanation. I am okay with no changes.
You're the third person to note this. I think that counts as consensus...
:-)
I believe working groups often do things like adding a document, or
splitting a document into two or even combining documents, without
changing their charter. I guess I've understood the essential
question for changing the charter to be when the substance of the
group's work is changed.
To the extent that a scenario, of the type you describe, causes
debate within a working group, I would think that it's usually
healthy for the group, since it can produce better clarity about the
group's work.
I'm not sure a document like the current draft should seem to be
more precise on this than it currently is. In other words, yes, the
controversy/confusion you cite happens, but we probably should not
change the current draft to affect that.
I am okay with the above.
hmmm. yeah. Strange wording choice, especially since as you note
the phrase is a formal term of art. No memory of what produced that
wording. I think better wording would be:
However, posting an I-D is often a good way to put
new ideas into concrete form, for public
consideration and discussion."
The (above) wording is fine.
The paragraph is meant to counter-act the reaction people sometimes
have, that posting an alternative draft is automatically a bad
thing, by noting that it can be a valid form of commenting on an
existing, other draft.
Ok.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy