[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Start running

On Sunday, Mar 23, 2003, at 02:22 America/Montreal, Tony Li wrote:

|    Although I generally tend to agree with your view, I do
|    think that we
|    need let everyone present their opinions and evaluate
|    them.

I fully endorse this.  But the implication of drafting full blown
proposals for each alternative is not one where you, as a manager,
set yourself up for success.  You instantly make it competitive and
not collaborative.
I'll try to paraphrase tli's view.

Full and open discussion is necessary and helpful. However, having
such discussion does not imply that the WG Chairs should create something
resembling a "horse race" to create competing proposals that will then
"fight it out".

An alternative approach, one (IMHO) much more likely to be successful
in creating a co-operative WG environment, is to have an open discussion
that is thoughtfully structured, top down. For example, the initial phase
of the discussion probably should be about the high-level technical issues
being addressed and possible architectural approaches to those issues. Once
rough consensus (smooth consensus not being a customary IETF requirement)
is achieved on the high-level issues and on the architectural approach,
the discussion could then move on to a next phase with a few high-level
engineering details being sorted out. Once those are sorted out, an
additional level of detail could be addressed. Only at the end would the
discussion delve into the nitty gritty implementation details. This way,
the chairs would create a path forward that encourages competition rather
than cooperation. And any good idea could be considered by the whole
group.

By contrast, asking folks to create full-fledged proposals right
now does the opposite -- encouraging competition and confrontation,
rather than cooperation.

Please consider taking the cooperative path forward.

Ran
rja@extremenetworks.com