On 1 September 2014 20:15, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dave,Only is a bit much, but the point was that a number of important documents DIDN'T use the WG process, and it turned into a mess.
On 9/1/14, 8:38 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
So we'll only discuss ideas that are written up as drafts, and we'll only discuss them in a working group, and we'll only create a working group around drafts that have traction, and we'll only consider a draft to have traction if there's discussion, and we'll only discuss them in a working group, and ...
I don't disagree, I'm just saying that if you enforce a set of mutually exclusive conditions, you end up with an exclusive system. I'd suggest we should be aiming to make it easy to bring new ideas to the table, even when this does cause some noise.
The problem is that even the area-level working groups have to positively adopt new drafts. I don't know the numbers of ad-sponsored, and pre-WG drafts there are, but if they were effectively forced onto an area-level working group as a working group of last resort, and would just die on the vine if there was no interest, then there would always be a discussion venue.
And no, I'm not saying that's a perfect solution.
Dave.