Re: WG Review: Operation of the IESG/IAB Nominating andRecallCommittees (nomcom)

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> At 10:11 PM 4/15/2002 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >Dave Crocker wrote:
> >..
> > >
> > > ps.  may we now move to discussing remedies for the draft charter?
> >
> >OK. Let's make the first deliverable a list of issues. Actually those
> >of us who've been debating this on the ietf-nomcom list already have
> >this list in our heads, but the WG can be tasked to write it down.
> 
> Brian, it appears that you are suggesting a specification effort that will
> be chartered without knowing what problems it is to solve.  

No. I'm suggesting that we have plenty of problems already on the table: more than
fit in the length of a reasonable charter. So let's stop the meta-discussion
and continue the real discussion officially in a WG with some speed.

>  This goes
> beyond having a "requirements" specification at the front-end of a working
> group effort.  It means that the IESG would be sprinkling pixie dust on an
> effort that has literally no meaningful focus or constraints.

Nonsense. Aren't you the same Dave Crocker we've been arguing with under
the subject field "rejecting candidates" for example? I see no pixie dust there.

> 
> That is a tad unusual for working groups, no?

If it were true. I've seen other WGs that start out by defining a more precise
problem statement.
> 
> Would it not be better to bring the list out of various people's heads, and
> have enough discussion to formulate community rough consensus on the topics
> to be discussed and resolved PRIOR to chartering, as is more typical in the
> IETF?
> 
> (I'm sorry.  I should have phrased that more carefully.  I meant to say
> "more typical of IETF efforts that are successful.)

I'm sorry. I thought I detected sarcasm and rhetoric for a moment.

   Brian