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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Judyth and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

espresso@e-scape.net wrote:

> 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.

  It does in some limited senses, yes.  But ICANN and other organizations
such as the ISOC, and the ITU, have not had much success along these lines.
Of course the have eliminated their individual memberships as well, especially
in the case of the ISOC of late...

>
> 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.

  Yes.

>
>
> >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.

  Name three.

> 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.

  How does one determine whether egotism or personality clash is extant
in a E-Mail based Committee adequately?  I really don't know of a
good way.  If you do, you should write a book or paper on it!  >;)

>
>
> 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.

  Well i have to agree that we do not yet have any reasonable method of
updating our Web page.  But that is what this thread is all about anyway
isn't it?  >;)  I also agree that the "Design" of our web page needs some
work.  But all the basic information is there, and can be located
with some minor difficulty.

>
>
> 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.

  I am still not sure how oru web site makes us look like idiots now Judyth?
Can you elaborate in some amount of detail Judyth?  If not, than is this
a general personal opinion?  What???

>
>
> 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.

  I agree here completely.  What we don't want is something on the web page
that does not reflect of dovetail what our organization is all about.  In other
words personal ideologies should not be on the web page.

>
>
> 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.

  Good idea.  Such a committee should be of members elected by the
members themselves though...

>
>
> 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."
> ##########################################################
>
>

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



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