[wg-d] Formalism

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

I've received some constructive criticism off-list about the level of
formalism in Sections 4.1 through 4.5 of the first draft. You will recall
that these are the sections relating to motions, recommending certain
subject prefixes, and setting forth the procedures for votes.

One concern is that these provisions will lead people to start too early to
put things in terms of motions -- and this will reduce real dialogue. A
recommended alternative is to allow extended discussion, then task a very
small group to do some drafting -- with posting, discussion of the draft,
and then redrafting following (with the safety valve that anyone can put
forward a draft). Another concern over early motions is that once something
passes, even if only by a bare majority, then everything looks like an
"amendment" and the search for the highest ground is severely slowed down if
not stopped. Voting at the end, over the result as a whole, might be a
better alternative.

I've also heard that the prefixes for subject headers are artificial, overly
complex, and contrary to most people's experience working online. The
thought is that WGs should consist of people who are closely following the
issues, and accordingly, headers to make things easy to sort or casually
review are not necessary. No good idea should go unheard because it came in
a message omitting a subject prefix.

Please keep these concerns in mind as you review the draft again, and think
about how we can revise it accordingly. More discussion of these sections is
certainly warranted.

      -- Bret