opaque docs [Re: rough consensus of what "population"?]

Pekka Savola pekkas at netcore.fi
Tue Mar 25 16:56:42 CET 2003


On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> --- Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu> wrote:
> > > So when rough consensus is being assessed on a spec, the
> > chair should
> > > first ask who has read the spec and should then ask only
> > those people
> > > to do the humming.
> > 
> > so if you want to exclude people outside the inner circle, all
> > you have 
> > to do is make the spec so long and so opaque that nobody else
> > can stand 
> > to read it.
> 
> Given Margaret's pleading for MIB reviewers in the IPv6-related
> working groups, this can't be news to anyone, can it?

One thing that I was about to raise in that particular w.g. was whether 
the majority of the IPv6 wg. is actually *capable* of being able to do 
any useful reviewing.

Descriptions of the variables, maybe -- but if most folks are
MIB-clueless, why insist on dragging people along?  

The most important things on the table were not about description nits but
integral MIB issues (ie ones you don't understand unless you're into
MIB's, I assume).  It seems to be self-deceptive to try to look for
opinions from the majority of the w.g. as they have none.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings



More information about the Problem-statement mailing list