Re: [Pesci-discuss] Next Steps: Who performs them?

>>>>> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> writes:

    Harald> If you see the "specific proposal" team as a competitor in
    Harald> a field of teams, each intent on pushing its own proposal,
    Harald> then your second point is correct.  However, I believe the
    Harald> situation is different: We will have the need for a
    Harald> *coheret* proposal, done by someone who's willing to take
    Harald> input, evaluate it fairly, and come up with something that
    Harald> hangs together.

    Harald> That "synthesis team" (and I believe there can be only one
    Harald> at any given time) will have to get the resources it needs
    Harald> in terms of plenary time, scheduling and so on.

The second team--the one designing the process change proposal could
in fact propose such a model.  If they did, and if the community
bought into it, I'd completely agree with you.  I certainly think this
is worth considering as an option; I'll admit that my wording was
focused on the status quo than on all possible outputs of the process
change process team.

if you believe that one team coming up with a synthesis process is a
principle, you can propose that as part of the pesci output.  I'll
need to think for a while about whether I think that's really a
principle.

But the key thing is that it would be community agreement to the need
for the synthesis team that made the synthesis team a reasonable
singleton team to exist.  Until that community agreement happens
giving the synthesis team preferencial treatment is inappropriate.

--Sam

_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
Pesci-discuss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss