Re: [wg-review] Comments on WG procedures

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

I guess you have more faith in the mandates from on high than I do.
But what your suggestion really sounds like is that you could have done it better
as a chair.  I stand by my point that the chairs should be independent.  So that
they are not rubber stamps.

Sincerely,

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 12:09:51PM -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
> > Mr. Crispin,
> >
> > I take issue with the subject under "Finally".  One sometimes has to look to
> > results rather than method to determine if a good method was used.  In
> > general I believe that these comments reflect the intellectual exchanges
> > this group has produced. If I pull out some of your comments of December I
> > would not have imagined you as the author of this document, therefore the
> > system worked.
>
> In any essentially random process there will some positive results.
>
> Consider:
>
> You want to get rid of a rodent in your house, so you blow up the house
> with dynamite.  You find a dead mouse.  You then claim the process
> worked, because you achieved your goal of eliminating the rodent.
>
> >  Further the currently resulting documents which appear to be
> > imminently floating to the TF and DNSO from this working group are within
> > bounds and quite productive.
>
> But things *could* have been very very much more productive.
>
> > I would therefore suggest that the chairs of this type of working group
> > retain their independent nature and continue to be allowed such aggressive
> > thought provoking methods.  I believe it may have been this open-mindedness
> > which brought many of us to participate in this group.
>
> Consider an alternate scenario, one where YJ started the WG with a clear
> statement of the real schedule, an explanation for why it is so
> compressed (the need to get things out in time for the required public
> comment periods before Melbourne), and had channeled the WG from the
> beginning towards the purpose of people submitting their own best
> comments.  Do you think that people would have left?
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
begin:vcard 
n:Dierker;Eric
tel;fax:(858) 571-8497
tel;work:(858) 571-8431
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:Eric@Hi-Tek.com
end:vcard