RE: WG next steps

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Tony Li wrote:

> |   About the roadmap: I think it would be useful at this stage
> |   for people to write up their ideas as drafts.

[...]

> I would suggest that we NOT go down the path of writing everything
> up as drafts.  That is hardly the best way to collaborate and
> immediately brings to the surface all of the ego issues involved in
> having "my" proposal vs. "your" proposal.

I'm still relatively new to all of this, so I'll take your word for it.

But is there a different way to get coherent, self-consistent proposals
on the table? Much of what we've seen on this list the past weeks has
been very interesting, but never concrete enough to really do anything
useful with, other than generate ideas or measure it against everyone's
individual idea of what the IP architecture should look like in the
future.

> I would suggest instead that the WG chairs select one person to act
> as 'editor' for the WG's proposal.  That we discuss issues here and
> come to rough consensus before we write things down formally.  The
> WG chairs will need to be active in setting the technical agenda
> and driving us to closure.  The editor will have to drive people to
> actually contribute text.  The editor needs to be someone with the
> time to put into this, someone who can be impartial, very comfortable
> with proper English grammar, and yet firm enough to get results from
> volunteers.

At least I don't have to worry here. If nothing else, even when I get it
right I'm never comfortable with English grammar...

> This is the way that the IETF *used* to work and it certainly made
> more progress than we seem to be making now.

Sounds good, although first trying to get a better picture of the new
architecture might not be a bad idea either.