Moving the process document forward
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Sat Sep 6 08:38:59 CEST 2003
On lördag, sep 6, 2003, at 00:49 Asia/Seoul, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think Jeanette is talking about the process for initiating a
>> proposal for change.
>
> I think so to. And I'm pessimistic about that happening quickly
> except by decisive IESG action.
speaking personally:
And if that happens, then perhaps a proposal from this group does
become superfluous. but until such time as they do, it is the WG role
to try and suggest a process to them.
And draft-davies-structural-rev-process-02 itself says, this group can
decide that it doesn't want to suggest any process other then asking
the IESG to please fix things. and if that turns out to be the rough
consensus then fine it gets documented and we are done.
My concern is that if we wait for speedy decisive action and that
action doesn't come then a year can pass with us being no further along
then we are now. the only alternative most of us have since we cannot
affect the IESG in any direct manner is to continue working within the
context of this WG within the context of its charter.
As i see the SAP proposal in draft-davies-structural-rev-process-00 it
is a way to create a 'design team', making sure that it gets and
considers opinions from all involved.
a.
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list