Re: [atlarge-discuss] How does the ietf do it?

[espresso@e-scape.net]

At 16:41 -0700 2002/10/22, Jeff Williams wrote:
>  I would suggest that a bottoms-up process for such documentation
>be determined through a measured consensus.  This meaning that
>a filtering process through a web WG or committee be used to
>get to the best choices and than let the members both feed this
>committee or WG, as well as decide by vote what recommendations
>this committee or WG suggests. 

I don't know the inner workings of the IETF but I do know the model whereby various members volunteering for a specific committee thrash things out and then give the broader membership a report on what was discussed and why the WG feels certain things more appropriate than others works well elsewhere.
Once the report is published, there is an opportunity for everyone to ask questions, suggest amendments or additions, and come to a consensus resolution which will most likely be accepted when the vote is called.

>There are some obvious problems
>with this approach or model however.  The single biggest one
>is that without a two way input and output from such a WG or
>committee the process will break down to infighting that will
>become so divisive as to be nearly unworkable, and that
>this model will be slow at first unless we limit debate and discussion
>on any potential web page update/add/delete.

On the contrary, relatively few committees whose members are there to achieve a common purpose allow themselves to be blocked and disrupted by infighting. When that does happen, it is almost invariably because the committee Chair is not doing his/her job properly: that is, making sure that discussion focuses on the subject at hand and no egotism or personality clash is allowed to intefere.

Personally, looking specifically at the issue of our Web site, I and others have been saying for quite some time that what this group needs is a clear policy on how the Web site should be built over time. In the absence of a policy for selecting and approving materials, or for determining what is most needed or presents the organization most intelligibly to Internet users, we have had and will continue to have a situation where things are posted unchecked and unapproved by anyone -- with the result that we look unprofessional and the contents are confusing or uninformative.

I myself am willing to put up with extensive debate over how these decisions should be made *if* the result is a procedure we members can agree on and a WG-Web studying how we can make best use of the Web site without making ourselves look like idiots. 

Of course, once the policy is in place, handling further materials through the prescribed process won't be rocket science and it should be possible for members to suggest improvements to a page without everything dissolving into  arguments.

While I'm mouthing off yet again, may I at least put in a good word for some kind of "Interim Editorial Committee" of people who will carefully read what people want to post and make sure the worst mistakes don't land on the site uncorrected? It doesn't take much policy, in my opinion, to determine that we'd be better off if these things were proofread first.

Regards,

Judyth



##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
##########################################################



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de