Re: [81attendees] casual attendees & WG process

[Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>]

At 3:11 PM +0000 8/9/11, Curtis Villamizar wrote:

>  We have lost touch with the "running code" part of "rough consensus 
> and running code" and we may not be doing well on the "rough 
> consensus" part either.  We are headed toward the design by 
> committee and voting methods used by other SDO along with including 
> every half thought out feature anyone imagined during the process 
> and no implementations.  This leads to protocols that don't work 
> with features that no one has ever implemented or where no one has 
> ever succeeded in getting to interoperate among vendors.

And of course, weeding this out was part of the three-stage maturity 
process which we've pretty much abandoned: When it seems pretty 
stable and has reached consensus and *looks* like a good idea, 
publish as Proposed Standard.  After a while, see who has actually 
implemented it and which parts were implemented and interoperate. 
Delete everything else, publish what's left as Draft Standard.  After 
a while, repeat but with a higher test (widespread implementation and 
deployment) and publish as Standard.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others.
    --Groucho Marx