RE: Process for Evaluating Solutions (RE: [Solutions] Document Process Improvement WG)

[<john.loughney@nokia.com>]

Hi Margaret,

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.

John