Re: [wg-d] WG Principles

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

> My proposal:  Rather than using the IETF process in which working group
> output is reviewed by increasingly smaller bodies

i am continually shocked by your mis-characterization of the ietf process.
the wg output is immediately reviewed by the ENTIRE IETF immediately it
leaves the wg.

> we ought to be adopting a process in which working group output is
> reviewed, re-evaluated, and explicitly re-accepted by increasingly larger
> bodies.

oh?  this is a grand statement, but it is not at all clear what it means
other than mandating monitonically increasing size of review bodies.  it
says nothing about their composition, goals, ...

> These working groups ought to be able to come up with proposals that they
> submit to the DNSO GA.  (Indeed, any individual should also be able to
> submit a proposal, working groups need not have the sole perogative to
> make proposals.)

in your opinion, what is the purpose of working groups?  maybe we should
just abolish the concept and have a free for all.

>> and a significant proportion of drafts go back for wg changes after iesg
>> review.
> As you say, the drafts can only be "rejected" and sent back.  

i did not say that.  in fact i specifically said otherwise.  iesg members
work at a very detailed level with the wg chairs, draft author/editors, and
wgs as a whole.

in general your continued characterizations of the ietf processes are very
misleading and often amazingly false.  i suggest we ignore what you think
the ietf process might be and try to focus on what the dnso wg processes,
should you even care to keep the concept of wgs, might be.

randy