Documenting consensus (RE: making strategic problems concrete)

Bound, Jim Jim.Bound at hp.com
Mon Mar 24 08:06:59 CET 2003


I think there is a problem and now that you say this it could be put in the change section of updated drafts or biz docs.  Reachinug PS, BCP, or Info as examples defines consensus yes.  Its up to those points.

/jim

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald at alvestrand.no] 
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 2:47 AM
> To: Bound, Jim; problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Documenting consensus (RE: making strategic problems 
> concrete)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --On søndag, mars 23, 2003 23:24:29 -0500 "Bound, Jim" 
> <Jim.Bound at hp.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> > Consensus is not well defined, it permits a persistent reviewing of 
> > the same topic over and over.  It is good to revisit our ideas, but 
> > after first agreement, having defined checkpoints, similar 
> to project 
> > change control in industry, would assist with when a previous 
> > consensus point can be open for review.  Or at least a 
> process to do 
> > this so it is not random and ad hoc.  This would also permit a bad 
> > consensus decision to be revisited and prevent it not being 
> revisited 
> > if it has become broken.
> 
> one thought.....
> 
> a peculiarity of our process is that the records kept are usually:
> 
> - internet-drafts
> - RFCs
> - meeting minutes
> - mailing list archives
> 
> RFCs are the end result of our process.
> internet-drafts are transient, under editor control, and 
> focused on the 
> deliverables, not the process.
> meeting minutes concern only the physical meetings.
> and finding the decisions in a 100-message-per-day WG debate 
> archive is 
> hell itself.
> 
> Is there a real problem in that we don't have any means 
> recognized by the 
> process of documenting the "consensus of the moment" except 
> by people's 
> memories?
> 
>                       Harald
> 
> 


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list