RE: WG next steps

["Tony Li" <Tony.Li@procket.com>]

|   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.


Sure.  First, we take an idea and discuss it.  We get consensus on 
the idea.  Then, we have someone go write up text on it.  We get 
consensus on the text and insure that it represents the idea.
Then we move on to the next issue, either laterally or digging deeper
down.


|   > 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.


Using this process, you start with the architecture and then iterate.
It allows us to leverage the writing skills of everyone in the group,
plus all of the brainpower assembled, and it avoids most of the high
ego situations.

Let me point out that if we continue the way that we have been, we'll
not make rapid progress, as we've seen.  This at least, will be a
change.

Tony