Documenting consensus (RE: making strategic problems concrete)

Bound, Jim Jim.Bound at hp.com
Mon Mar 24 08:12:58 CET 2003


Hmmm.  The problem is?

Status of work-in-progress needs better communications and updates to
the working group, IESG, and the IETF body as a whole, so all are
operating under the same assumptions.  This would help resolve the
problem of persistent revisitation of specifications, which slows down
the TTM process for deliverables.

/jim

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald at alvestrand.no] 
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 3:15 AM
> To: Dave Crocker
> Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Documenting consensus (RE: making strategic 
> problems concrete)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --On mandag, mars 24, 2003 00:10:39 -0800 Dave Crocker 
> <dhc at dcrocker.net> 
> wrote:
> 
> > Harald,
> >
> > Hmmm...
> >
> > HTA> also a mechanism problem - in order to find out what good work 
> > HTA> the
> > chairs HTA> have been doing in asserting and documenting 
> consensus, I 
> > either have to HTA> scan mailing list archives or figure out where 
> > *this* working group keeps HTA> its non-standard extra web 
> pages (or 
> > whatever other mechanism it uses).
> >
> > sounds like you would like a separate log of working group 
> issues and 
> > decisions to be maintained, somewhat like a tracking system for 
> > internal working group progress?
> 
> Certainly one possible solution; another would be to create 
> an "announce" 
> mailing list for each WG where the chairs sent out all 
> consensus calls and 
> "important" WG actions; a third would be requiring WGs to 
> send monthly 
> status reports to the secretariat - all of these have different side 
> effects; one thing they share is that they require more 
> "paperwork" for WG 
> chairs.
> 
> Still trying to name the problem without specifying the solutions....
> 
>              Harald
> 


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list