Re: [wg-d] A sort of summary

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

> there is a big concern with abuse - from one side concern that the
> powerful will abuse any lack of rigorous structure, and from the other
> side, concern that the vast numbers of uninformed adherents to various
> causes will skew votes away from rational decisions.

you like democracy and you get the tyranny of the majority.

> Fundamentally, then, trust is the problem.  Any system we use must address
> this issue head on or it will fail.

trust can not be address by anything exept time.  lack of trust may be
addressed by processes which attempt to provide fairness, for varying
values of fair.

> Third, that the real linchpin of any WG will be the Chair(s).  It will
> therefore be crucial to include some criteria for choosing the chair in
> the first place.  An ability to devote time ought to be avowed by the
> chair, and some qualifications on the subject matter at hand wouldn't hurt
> either.

if you are trying to pursue fairness, then having a chair who has no axe to
grind on the subject is crucial and has been an extreme problem in many
[sub-]wgs to date.  the alternative is multiple chairs with conflicting
biases to achieve balance.

> 2. Bret Fausett - in part in response to these concerns - proposed that
> WG-D be one group, not two.  I agree.

i too, for the moment.

> 3. The diversity question is real, despite the fact that it is politely
> ignored.  This subcommittee is overwhelmingly North American.  If we want to
> have any claim to credibility, we must get some more people from outside the
> US.   Unfortunately, this is a difficult task for those of who are in the
> US.  Nonetheless we should attempt it.

come over to the ncdnhc, where the non-americans prevail due to exellent
'outreach'.

randy