Hi,
I think you could recruit/enlist up a small team of
volunteers who were willing to do rigorous review - very
much the way a journal article is refereed. Once we have a
joint requirement statement, and i too think this is
optimum, they could be asked to review and comment.
I would think that the members of this group, ~ 4 max,
would be selected for their knowledge, experience and for
being non partisan - i.e. they should not be members of
either group a, b or etc. Generally they should be people
who are interested but above the 'fray'. Perhaps, the
elders among us who listen with forbearance, and perhaps
some amusement.
As to why I think we should come down to one doc. As Frank
pointed out at one point, we are more then 80% in agreement,
though our language is different in many places. By forcing
Frank and i and and others (i.e. a normal 'design' team
composed of some from each of the groups plus some new
blood) to sit down and hammer out a doc that shows the
agreements and the yet to be agreed areas, we will move
closer to a coherent set of requirements and issues. I think
this doc would go through several revisions and discussion
cycles before it annealed. Only then would the review group
referred to above be asked to weigh in. I.e.. we would not
bother them until we though we were finished (so to speak).
I don't think it really matters if RRG comes to 100%
agreement on requirements. The part that is agreed becomes
the core requirements while the rest becomes items for
further discussion, or research, or optional whatever.
cheers
a.
Sean Doran wrote:
> | Certainly the development of "one set" would still go through the
> | usual mail list full-contact review process.
>
> Abha and I struggled with the idea of a more rigorous review
> than one usually gets from one-shot list reading by busy people.
> Unfortunately, we didn't come up with anything that didn't
> involve paying people in some fashion.
>
> I'm all ears, though, because one of the weaknesses of the WG
> model imho is that it is very difficult to motivate people to
> really read through and comment publically or even privately
> upon drafts.
>
> (I'm particularly keen on the thinking of the research crowd,
> since they have a VERY different publication process than the
> IETF, and our RG's "constitution" does NOT require us to follow
> many of them, as opposed to making up our own).
>
> Sean.
>
>
>
-- Mobile: +46 73 029 8019 Office: +46 920 49 3030http://www.bethepeople.com/vaccine_rides/events_vacc_eu.htm Rider: Avri Doria Rider #: 1338
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT