what are the real problems

[Joel M. Halpern]

As long as we understand this as a tension, we are probably fine.  Treating 
this as simple produces bad results.
For example, as worded Dave's note suggests that there is no drawback from 
having too many efforts.  I don't think anyone believes that there are no 
drawbacks.
Just in case, let me suggest one of the many drawbacks.  I believe that no 
matter what organizational structure we craft for ourselves, there will 
always be a leadership load based on the number of "things to be lead" 
(working groups, activities, ...)  As such, taking a view that we should 
allow more competing efforts (which at least some of the time is indeed 
what we should do) puts more load on our leadership.  I would be very 
surprised if we could find a structure in which such loading was not 
warning for care to prevent system failure.

Another major issue with allowing competing efforts is that the results do 
not interoperate.  If there is any technical mantra that has driven our 
work and our success, I think that a focus on interoperability (rather 
than, for example, conformance) has been critical.  It is why we try very 
hard to have as few options in protocols as possible,, for example 
(although we seem to fail about as often as we succeed on that particular 
goal.)

Yours,
Joel

At 10:17 PM 5/22/2003 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>Keith,
>
> >> terminating credible efforts prematurely is silly.
>KM> so is spreading ourselves too thin.
>
>ahh,  right.
>
>that was the argument for not doing xmpp.
>
>better to worry about multiple efforts, each of which has serious
>support, than it is to worry about unproductive efforts that drag on for
>years.
>
>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>