Re: Design Teams (was "v 1.2, IETF material")

[Einar Stefferud <Stef=[e-mail]>]

Since I posted the following proposal to POISED, I have seen nothing
that disputes its propriety, nor any challenges to its wisdom.
Indeed, most of the discussion seems to support it.

It makes the simple point that it is what happens after contribution
that needs to be regulated, and the point that design groups are
really no different than any other organized contribution effort.

Yet, it recognizes (vice denying) their fact of existance and lays
down a basis for each WG to deal with them in a concensus controlled
manner.

So, how about lets adopt it as proposed?		

Or, if it needs change, how about some suggested text changes.

Cheers...\Stef


From: Einar Stefferud <Stef=[e-mail]>;  Thu, 03 Dec 1992 01:36:51 -0800
Subject: Re: v 1.2, IETF material 

}............ I want to make a suggestion for a temporary statement
}of policy that might serve to stabilize things while we work on the
}URGENT items list.  To wit:
} 
}1.  The concept of spontaneous design team formation for the purposes
}    of developing contributions to Working Groups is endorsed, with
}    certain conditions applied to the handling of design team
}    contributions, if and when they are openly contributed to a WG.
}    If design team results are never contributed, there is no issue.
} 
}2.  The primary consideration for handling design team contributions
}    is that they must be completely given over to the WG for review,
}    comment, and revision according to WG rules and processes.  That
}    is, the WG in question may handle it in any way that enjoys fully
}    open WG consensus on: (i) the processes employed; (ii) selection
}    of the editor of the document source tree; and (iii) clear and
}    open WG consensus on the end result.
} 
}NOTE: These items are really no different than we should also apply to
}      all work done in any WG, that is based on any externally
}      generated contribution, such as from a single vendor/user or
}      group of vendors/users, or even from a government.
} 
}3.  It in not desirable at this time to overly-specify WG rules beyond
}    the clearly stated requirements for open WG consensus on all the
}    items listed in 2 above, in addition to all other requirements for
}    open consensus with regard to WG activities and results.  It is not
}    now possible, and may never be possible or desirable, to fully
}    specify these things beyond the rules in 2 above, though it is not
}    precluded to spend effort on further refinement at some future
}    time when we have more experience with this modest formal
}    recognition of the useful existence and productive power of the
}    Spontaneous Design Team Concept.
} 
}I suggest that this be framed as an Experimental RFC to properly
}formalize it as an IETF experiment.