Re: [wg-review] 5. [WG] Mike Roberts on "noise" in the process

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

At 01:02 PM 2/14/01, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>I think Mike is right there, but we could improve: this was something to 
>be discussed at http://byconsensus.org ...

Hopefully we'll get there eventually :)

>I think the real problem is the lack of qualification of the new commers 
>and the lack of reference. You cannot read the archives of a WG-Group (who 
>ever do it) and pretend to know about the subject.

One of the problems, for sure. WG-D addressed it in terms of a "cut-off 
date" for new WG members. Qualifications is a different issue, but we 
really do need some kind of "training wheels" task force or wg to help 
people learn process.

>  This is why I think the best solution is that the participants to a WG 
> maintain a position paper, they adapt as the debate progresses. A new 
> commer has only to read them to understand what has been agreed, and the 
> level of competence required. Also it protects against perturbators who 
> usually have no established and structured doctrine. Eventually it 
> permits consensus uncovering process trhough the permitted merging or 
> addition of parts of the position statements.

This is a nice idea - I'd like to see that as a formal process 
recommendation and try it out. If it worked well, that could be a major 
step forward in process.


Regards,
Greg

sidna@feedwriter.com

--
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