Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")

[Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>]

On 11/29/12 2:32 PM, George, Wes wrote:
> [WEG] I'm sorry if it was unclear, but I am not saying that
> *everything* must be specified, nor do I think anyone should
> undertake an effort to even identify all of the things that are
> currently unspecified. I'm pointing out a specific area of confusion
> and inconsistency that has been created by something that is
> unspecified and asking "should we specify?"

I'm not very clear on what problem you're trying to solve, or
why it's a problem.  I've seen some stuff around working
group draft adoption that I don't like very much but am not
sure that I'd identify those as a "problem," per se, or that
they would be done better with yet another process document.

Lo, those many years ago I co-chaired (with Avri Doria) the
"problem" working group.  It was a very bad experience, and
I think left me convinced that dorking around with formalizing
process stuff should absolutely not be done unless someone's
identified a specific problem that interferes with getting
documents out.  Process we just don't happen to like is not
a problem.

Melinda