RE: [RRG] Process proposal: agenda admission control

["Fleischman, Eric" <eric.fleischman@boeing.com>]

I'm sure that I'm not the only person who is uncomfortable with the
"fluff" in this proposed process.

I propose that the process be enhanced with the following modifications
that should occur well before any meeting or any identification of what
proposal is "worthy" or "unworthy":  each proposed approach (in order to
become eligible for consideration should)
1) create a terse summary of its technical approach (i.e., technologies
used with a goal for the RRG community to classify and contrast similar
and dissimilar approaches)
2) identify its preferred *deployment architecture" approach (i.e., to
identify where in the Internet "cloud" this approach operates and how it
interacts with other Internet entities)
3) It's advocates should identify what they perceive the approach's
technical strengths to be
4) It's advocates should identify what they perceive the approach's
technical weaknesses to be. 
5) It's detractors (if any) should compile a list providing technical
evidence to question the claimed technical strengths and add to the
perceived weaknesses

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Li [mailto:tli@cisco.com] 
>Please note that we specifically did not require this.  It's 
>very difficult to ascertain if someone is truly neutral and 
>also ensure that they actually behave that way even if they 
>say that they are. To avoid undue bias, we specifically want 
>the supporting committee member to publicly known for 
>supporting the proposal.  If the proposal is indeed unworthy, 
>this would reflect badly on the committee member.  Hopefully 
>this would act as a deterrent to insufficient selectivity or 
>conflict of interest.


--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg