Re: [wg-d] "Interim Measures"

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> It would be great if DNSO WGs could be made to function as
> effectively as IETF WGs

Like the IETF WG that has sat in stasis for two+ years while people argue
over whose name goes on the document?

Like the IETF WG that has its work held back while that previously
mentioned WG argues like Lilliputions?

Like the IETF WG that has found the process so slow and cumbersome that it
stops and disbands when it publishes its first draft because by that time
it is already a de facto standard in products by several vendors and
further revisions would be a waste of time?

Or like the IETF WG that had so much consensus that it wasted many years
creating something that looked like an OSI-phile's dream and which was
utterly rejected by the industry.

No thanks.

Let's use a procedure which has been show to work well for a very long
time in very contentious situations, Robert's Rules.

		--karl--