I'll try to paraphrase tli's view.| 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.
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".
That was not my intention or what I meant. See other mail to Tony.
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
This sounds like what I proposed in the mail to Tony?
additional level of detail could be addressed. Only at the end would theI think you are describing what I said in the mail to Tony.
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.