On 4/20/2014 10:15 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Right. The alternate defense against a WG charter that allowed for anything more than wordsmithing was to insist that proponents of a working group go do the work of a working group to evaluate the protocol and figure out if it needed any changes before such a working group would be chartered.
Defense is an interest choice of words. It tends to imply an obligation to start a working group even when there is no work known to be needed.
Working groups are expensive. The costs they incur are justified only when there is known to be a need.
Requiring clear statements about the need is not 'defensive'; it is merely being professional and responsible.
d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net