Mike Jones wrote:
The problem with this proposal is that it removes the community’s voice
from the spec creation process. Our members should always be given the
option to vote NOT TO create a working group as well as the option to
vote TO create one. Otherwise, a working group can be created by a very
small group of insiders, without the community serving as a check & balance.
The current procedure, by design, always gives the community a voice,
and the final say. I believe we got this principle right the first time.
Your objection seems to consider that there are some disadvantages to
the existance of a working group. Would you mind enumerating what you
consider these to be?
As far as I can tell, the existence of a working group is mostly
harmless. It consumes some resources in the sense that it has a mailing
list and it requires votes to be made, but that seems like minimal overhead.
Could it be sufficient to simply vote on the final spec rather than on
the creation of the working group in the first place? If the community
doesn't like the result, it can veto the completed spec rather than the
idea that drove that spec.
In practice, I'd expect that a working group would get a general idea of
whether it is popular or not during its working phase, so some working
groups may "die out" due to lack of interest before they even get to the
voting phase.
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
[email protected]
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
