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