Cutting through the accumulating sludge (was: Re: Doing the Right Things? and/or WG Quality Processes WG)

[Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com]

> 
> For those who don't like reading my long notes -- at least 
> before they know what they have to say -- this note suggests 
> that we bypass WGs and even BOFs for most of this work and adopt 
> a model that uses
> 
> 	* proposal-> affirmative decision -> implementation ->
> 	subsequent review and write up -> Last Call and BCP if needed
> 
> and
> 
> 	* proposal -> negative decision -> discussion/ debate/
> 	serious write up -> Last Call
> 
> instead of pretending the tuning suggestions about WG process 
> are technical standards.  It explains why I think that is 
> appropriate, probably necessary, and The Right Thing to Do.
> 
> A more general way to categorize the things WGs do, and the ways 
> in which they should do it, might be an output from this 
> process, or a separate, longer-term, thread, but shouldn't be 
> turned into a blocking prerequisite.
> 

I completely agree. This is (possibly) a much faster route to 
accomplishing something quickly in the IETF. 

-Basavaraj