Hi Scott,
| - There have been a number of attempts at characterizing the | solution space. Once upon a time we were trying to establish | dimensions along which they could be compared quantitatively. | Lately we've just settled for describing them. You took one of | the more recent attempts and incorporated it in a draft you wrote, | and are proposing that it represent the RRG's position on how to | think about solutions in order to select one. More precisely, I'm interested in using it as one means of thinking about the problem space. I'm not saying it's the only one. It seems useful, so let's use it. | - You are applying strong control on the content -- if you disagree | with an idea your position has strong weight -- but this conflicts | with your stated role as "editor" and your position as co-chair in | which you are mainly trying to create consensus. If you want to | be in an author role, please say so. Yes, as "editor" of this document, I'm exercising stronger control over the content here. This is not in conflict with my stated role as a 'neutral' co-chair, where I'm not an advocate of any given particular proposal. As you well know, I've always been an advocate of us making forward progress. At this time, this seems to be the best way to move forward. | - The conceptual framework was lifted from Bill Herrin and you do | not want any modifications to happen without Bill's involvement. | You want his opinions to carry significant weight. But once you | take the framework and put it in the RRG's draft, it isn't Bill's | anymore. More precisely, I'm concerned about taking Bill's work, citing it as his (absolutely necessary, of course) and then modifying it without his assent. Obviously, we can make it clear that this is a diverging derivative, but I'm still hopeful that we can get Bill's involvement. That said, the first priority is to make forward progress. If that means that his taxonomy needs improvement, then that needs to happen. If it's a significant change, then we'll attribute Bill, make the change, and diverge from his direction. |Here is what I would like to happen: | | - Consensus discussion on what should go in a recommendation draft. | A categorization of solutions is probably a good idea but it isn't | enough -- we should talk about how we think it in particular can | be used, but also how we think the draft as a whole might be used | by the IETF to make progress. As it stands I don't think the | draft is very useful to the IETF. Again, the IETF is irrelevant. This is our internal process. I support the idea of a consensus discussion of what should go into the draft, and that's already what's happening. Yes, the draft is not supposed to just be about taxonomy. I would definitely like to add more consensus items to it and I welcome and encourage the discussion. I'd like to explicitly invite folks to open new topics for consensus (in an orderly, polite and sensible fashion, of course). |I was relieved to hear that you aren't trying to submit a draft before |this meeting. I _have_ submitted a draft before the meeting. That's what you are already reading. I will be submitting an update to it at the end of this week (or sooner, depending on other events). |I will write up what I can on this over the next few |weeks. I'm about to go on a four-cities-in-a-week tour so I won't be |able to produce anything for the group to get their teeth into until |the 2nd week of March, but I request a time slot in the RRG agenda to |present some proposals. If all goes well I won't need it, but I would |like to reserve the slot just in case. I welcome that and again point your to our normal process for requesting agenda slots. Cheers, Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
