[wg-d] Impasses

["Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com>]

>I believe that it is unethical to manipulate the composition of a group to
>obtain a preferred outcome, and am being 'instructed' to do just that.

I hope that this is not what is going on. I hope that the NC believed 
(correctly or incorrectly) that the size of the Working Group was 
creating an impasse. 

But if breaking through an impasse is the perceived problem, then you 
first have to know you're at an impasse. How do you know? It seems to me 
that you don't know until you've surveyed the community. If the _Working 
Group_ is deadlocked, perhaps the solution is to have separate groups 
draft position papers/draft proposals that are opened for public comment. 

If the exercise of drafting proposals doesn't show areas of agreement, 
then perhaps the public comments will. In courting public opinion, 
positions will moderate. Maybe the public comments will reveal that one 
proposal is preferred. 

Personally, I would recommend that before declaring any WG unworkable, it 
publish something, from any and all groups that have a united position, 
for public review and comment. 

Then have another draft posted. In courting community opinion and 
support, the drafters will adopt comments and proposed revisions. The 
positions will moderate. If after two or three iterations, you still 
don't have a compromise or consensus, then perhaps you have a GA 
referendum and send the proposals up to the NC.

That's one way of doing it.

      -- Bret