[Mmwg] Reviewing the discussions

[Vittorio Bertola]

Il giorno mer, 25/01/2006 alle 10.11 -0500, Milton Mueller ha scritto:
> I am strongly opposed to having the Bureau/Council adopt reports. I
> suspect Luc would be, too. That sets them up as a detached,
> free-standing group that would inevitably draft, modify and publish
> reports on their own.

No, why? Actually, it is a key point that documents (or reports or
however you call them) are developed in an open environment, and then
get to the formal group only to be approved or rejected. You could write
this down very clearly in the rules of the game: the Council can start a
working group, but then the working group works according to open
procedures, while the Council sits and waits. The Chair of the working
group calls consensus, and sends the document to the Council for
approval or rejection. In this latter case, the Council is required to
state valid reasons for rejecting and starting one more iteration.

> It is very much a WGIG model you propose. The Bureau/Council is just
> another WGIG.

Not at all. The WGIG was actually drafting, not just acting as the final
checkpoint, nor it had open WGs. In fact, I am just proposing to adopt,
almost verbatim, the IETF/IESG model.

> I would prefer something more open, more participatory, less
> susceptibly to domination by a small clique. 

I think that one key point in which we differ is that you think that
more formalization leads to more capture, while I think that more
formalization leads to less capture.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...