Draft minutes from San Francisco
dhc at dcrocker.net
Mon Apr 7 13:36:47 CEST 2003
>> MS> that isn't the problem he's looking at. Dave said that may
>> MS> be theoretically true, but isn't this a test for working
>> MS> groups getting formed?
>> Unfortunately, I do not understand the above summary of my interaction
>> with Ted.
>> My general point was that the ability of a working group to make
>> progress is the test of its viability. If it cannot make progress, it is
>> not viable. The mere fact of better bookkeeping -- signing up people's
>> names -- does not alter actual work done.
MS> My recollection of what was actually said at the time is
MS> that you were pointing out that identification of some
MS> responsible individuals is a prerequisite for working group
MS> formation in the first place, and that comment was made in
MS> the context you describe.
I apologize for having such a poor memory for details. Otherwise I
could provide a more direct quotation.
y best guess is that I was saying that "demonstration of sufficient
community interest to do the work" is a prerequisite for forming a
That sounds fuzzier, I know, but it is actually the language that has
been used for about 10 years to describe one of the criteria form
validating working group formation. (Think of it as a kind of rough
consensus process about support.)
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>
More information about the Problem-statement