Re: [RAI] RAI processes for handling work effectively

[Hadriel Kaplan <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 14, 2013, at 3:29 PM, Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 07/30/2013 04:27 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
>>> From: Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>
>>> 
>>> I think one core point here is that for
>>> any question asked, there needs to be some identified "someone" who's
>>> charged with coming up with "the answer" (or "the information needed to
>>> make sense of the question") - and is able to do so on a relatively
>>> short timeframe.
>> That's hard to do if you don't have (1) a budget for maintaining a
>> staff of experts, either full-time or on a consulting basis, and (2)
>> granting the "someone" the authority to have their answer accepted by
>> all parties.
> 
> Michael Everson has been remarkably successful at doing this function on the ietf-languages list for the last 15 years or so.
> 
> Not saying that it will always work, or always work noncontroversially, but it CAN work.

"ietf-languages" as in the IANA registry for language tags a la RFC 4646/5646?

That's cool and all, but you can't really equate that to the impact and detail of registering new SDP stuff.

If we spent some time on it, we could probably pick some specific things in SDP for which new token values could be registered via a single designated expert without WG consensus - we already have some that don't even require a standards action, according to the IANA registry.

But I don't think we'd ever get consensus to do that for the "important" things in SDP, if we could even agree on what the "important" things are... let alone do I think we could agree on a single individual to be Judge Judy.

-hadriel