Re: [wg-d] "Interim Measures"

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 07:25:31PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> > The WG cannot go into detailed analysis, it wold require a consulting
> > firm. 
> 
> somehow the ietf stumbles along with wgs and no consulting firms.
> 
> randy

The IETF doesn't use Roberts Rules.  The IETF uses some arcane thing
called "rough consensus".  The IETF doesn't generally hold elections
for WG chairs.  Perhaps most important, IETF WGs don't fret about who
they represent or why -- they do work. 

The IETF also has the IESG (and IAB, to some extent) to *actually
manage* the consensus process.  WG charters and WG chairs are
approved before the WG gets off the ground.  The IETF has people with
proven experience in a formal role called "area advisor" who monitor
the WG.

It would be great if DNSO WGs could be made to function as
effectively as IETF WGs (and indeed I sent around a document based on
RFC2418 in hopes of motivating that), but some people, such as
yourself(*), seem bent on ditching the years of IETF experience.  
It's odd, therefore, for you to hold up the IETF as a model.


(*) "i support the inclination towards robert's rules"

    -- Randy Bush, Tue, 10 Aug 1999 16:20:45 -0700 (PDT)


-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain