On Wed, 15 May 2013, Keith Moore wrote:
I'd like to see WGs be more pro-active about periodically summarizing the salient points of their proposals, determining which parties outside of the WG are likely to be affected, explicitly soliciting input from those parties, and explicitly considering that input in their deliberations. Some WGs do this, but for most WGs I don't think it happens often enough or formally/transparently enough.
I agree. I'm also participating on nanog-l and other operator lists, and it's very rarely that a WG solicits feedback in those kinds of forums.
Question is, if larger feedback is requested, a lot of the time a larger feedback will be generated, and more work needed to go through this feedback and answer it.
End result might be better, but overall workload would be up, both in preparation phase and when feedback is coming in. I'm sure end result would probably be better, but more work would be needed, probably resulting in less technical work being done.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se
