[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Process for Evaluating Solutions (RE: [Solutions] Document Process Improvement WG)
Getting to the 2nd half of your message:
> I also included a paragraph on the level of compliance that should
> be required from IETF WGs (none):
> > A great deal of efficiency and synergy can be achieved by adopting
> > common processes and tools throughout an organization. However, it
> > is a strength of the IETF that WG chairs are given a great deal of
> > latitude to choose their own processes and tools, based on the size
> > and nature of their WGs. So, in general, processes and tools
> > should be made available to WGs and WG chairs, not forced upon them.
> Do people agree with this? Or should WGs be required to demonstrate
> that particular quality steps have been followed before submitting a
> document to the IESG?
Requiring WGs to demonstrate that they've followed the steps seems
like a layer of bureacracy that we don't need. Who would ensure that
the steps have been followed - the Secretariat? the IESG? I think
having an informal list is not bad, however, kind of like the ID-NITS.