I'm sure that I'm not the only person who is uncomfortable with the "fluff" in this proposed process.
I propose that the process be enhanced with the following modifications that should occur well before any meeting or any identification of what proposal is "worthy" or "unworthy": each proposed approach (in order to become eligible for consideration should) 1) create a terse summary of its technical approach (i.e., technologies used with a goal for the RRG community to classify and contrast similar and dissimilar approaches) 2) identify its preferred *deployment architecture" approach (i.e., to identify where in the Internet "cloud" this approach operates and how it interacts with other Internet entities) 3) It's advocates should identify what they perceive the approach's technical strengths to be 4) It's advocates should identify what they perceive the approach's technical weaknesses to be. 5) It's detractors (if any) should compile a list providing technical evidence to question the claimed technical strengths and add to the perceived weaknesses -----Original Message----- From: Tony Li [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Please note that we specifically did not require this. It's >very difficult to ascertain if someone is truly neutral and >also ensure that they actually behave that way even if they >say that they are. To avoid undue bias, we specifically want >the supporting committee member to publicly known for >supporting the proposal. If the proposal is indeed unworthy, >this would reflect badly on the committee member. Hopefully >this would act as a deterrent to insufficient selectivity or >conflict of interest. -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
