[Mmwg] Reviewing the discussions

[Vittorio Bertola]

Il giorno mer, 25/01/2006 alle 10.48 -0500, Avri Doria ha scritto:
> if there is a an end role for the bureau, i see it more in assuring  
> that everything was done correctly in the process of producing the  
> report.  i do not, however, see it as being responsible for its  
> content or for approving its content.  that role should belong to the  
> plenary.

I repeat the objection: how do you let the plenary approve anything? By
show of hands in the room? It's not like I adore this Council idea, but
to me it's better than voting by an undefined entity, or than letting a
Secretariat or Chair decide whether the consensus is pro or against,
without any kind of real accountability to all stakeholders.

> > almost verbatim, the IETF/IESG model.
> 
> i think this is a good model to adapt, but with some important  
> differences.
> 
> for example the bureau could be composed of stakeholder  
> representatives, and not technical expert/managers.

Of course it would :-)

> and rather then a noncom process to pick the members of the bureau  
> the stakeholders might pick their representative according to their  
> own methods (maybe a vote, maybe a nomcom or maybe something i can't  
> envision at the moment)

That's what I said.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...