[Mmwg] Reviewing the discussions

[Avri Doria]

On 25 jan 2006, at 12.55, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> 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.

you are using the IETF model, so perhaps we can borrow a bit more of  
that model (with variation of course).

first the Wg develops the report and reaches rough consensus on it

then there is a plenary wide review of the report.  the wg is  
responsible for responding to all comments.  that does not mean they  
have to change the report, but they have to show that the  
considerations were taken into account, discussed and why the report  
came out as it did.

then the report, comments and a report on the results of the process  
followed (i.e. record/synopsis of the deliberation of the comment  
issues), are sent to the bureau who checks to make sure that the  
process was followed before releasing the report and dissent as the  
work of the forum.

an additional element that can be borrowed from the wgig is that a  
comments report can also be released if the comments are substantive  
enough to warrant it.  that is the sort of decision a bureau can make.

a.