At 01:53 PM 3/29/02 +0000, Paul Robinson wrote: >Now, >I'm not saying this shouldn't have been written and the authors have wasted >their time, but am I the only one who thinks this smells a little of an >attempt at the over-engineering of a voluntary group?
Probably not, but I don't think so. My bias is that more information is always better than less information, and since a lot of people are unhappy with how things are going (working groups that never finish, documents and charters taking a long, long time to get through IESG review, etc.) finding ways to tickle out possible indicators doesn't strike me as a bad thing. Two more things: 1) I don't see any engineering going on in or around the document - just the beginning of an analysis, and 2) voluntary groups ought to be held accountable to their participants, if not the consumers of their work. Melinda
