Re: [wg-review] Comments on WG procedures

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 12:09:51PM -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
> Mr. Crispin,
> 
> I take issue with the subject under "Finally".  One sometimes has to look to
> results rather than method to determine if a good method was used.  In
> general I believe that these comments reflect the intellectual exchanges
> this group has produced. If I pull out some of your comments of December I
> would not have imagined you as the author of this document, therefore the
> system worked.

In any essentially random process there will some positive results.

Consider:

You want to get rid of a rodent in your house, so you blow up the house 
with dynamite.  You find a dead mouse.  You then claim the process 
worked, because you achieved your goal of eliminating the rodent.

>  Further the currently resulting documents which appear to be
> imminently floating to the TF and DNSO from this working group are within
> bounds and quite productive.

But things *could* have been very very much more productive.

> I would therefore suggest that the chairs of this type of working group
> retain their independent nature and continue to be allowed such aggressive
> thought provoking methods.  I believe it may have been this open-mindedness
> which brought many of us to participate in this group.

Consider an alternate scenario, one where YJ started the WG with a clear 
statement of the real schedule, an explanation for why it is so 
compressed (the need to get things out in time for the required public 
comment periods before Melbourne), and had channeled the WG from the 
beginning towards the purpose of people submitting their own best 
comments.  Do you think that people would have left? 

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html