Documenting consensus (RE: making strategic problems concrete)

[john.loughney at nokia.com]

Hi all,

At the WG chairs lunch in San Francisco, we discussed that supporting
a common way for WGs to log & resolve issues would be a good thing.
Further more, archiving these issue lists was seen as a good thing.

Would this meet part of concerns?

As I see it, part of the problem is that determining consensus on 
mailing lists is problematic, especially when there is heavy 
traffic.  Further more, one (over) active poster can create an
illusion of consensus by wearing down the WG.  

A potential solution would a way to track issues and document 
consensus.  A number of working groups (AAA, SIP, MIP & others
which I am probably not aware of) have had good success at this.

This also provides a good place for the IESG to review the status
of documents & WGs.

br,
John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Dave Crocker [mailto:dhc at dcrocker.net]
> Sent: 24 March, 2003 10:00
> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Documenting consensus (RE: making strategic problems
> concrete)
> 
> 
> Harald,
> 
> HTA> Is there a real problem in that we don't have any means 
> recognized by the
> HTA> process of documenting the "consensus of the moment" 
> except by people's
> HTA> memories?
> 
> good question.
> 
> well-run working groups have chairs that are regularly assessing and
> declaring working group.  These actions are recorded in meeting
> minutes or on the mailing list archive.
> 
> Do we need a different, formal mechanism?
> 
> Perhaps the problem is merely that we do not train chairs to do this
> enough and do not check that they are doing it?
> 
> Is this a mechanism problem or a training problem?
> 
> d/
> --
>  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>
> 
>