"trouble maker"

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On 23. juni 2003 08:02 +0900 avri <avri at apocalypse.org> wrote:

> [speaking personally]
>
> the problem i end up having, is how does one know there
> is new information or a new argument until after that argument
> is given.   the tendency is often to rephrase the argument in
> new language.  but the speaker if asked, will certainly claim
> it is a new argument or info.
>
> this is where i think a procedural mechanism may be helpful.

a related problem is getting the group to remember what the previous 
decision was, and what the compelling arguments for that decision were.
This is especially a problem when it's not possible to read the decision 
out of the drafts - for instance, where a decision was to *remove* stuff 
from a draft - or where there is a large turnover of WG membership.

<solutionism>
record-keeping in a form other than the list archive and the end product of 
the WG might be a good idea; I've occasionally seen meeting minutes used 
this way, but it's more difficult for decisions reached on the mailing list.
</solutionism>

                   Harald