Subject: RE: Formalizing Design Teams

From: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:32:52 -0500

This isn't really a specific reply but rather some general comments.

As I recall it, at the time the process documents were modified to
explicitly mention design teams, there were two reasons. One was
the existence of semi-organized groups that were drafting documents
or otherwise providing input to WGs and were perhaps even designated
by the WG chair in a some cases. The other was to answer frequent
complaints that because WGs and their mailing lists were supposed
to be open, therefore no private discussion of any sort was permitted
in connection with any topic that was, or might be before a WG. This
is, of course, nonsense. People are permitted to bump into each other
in the hall and discuss whatever they want. People are permitted to
telephone a WG chair, and vice versa, and discuss a matter before the
WG without having to publish a transcript of the call on the mailing
list, etc. The mention of design teams in the process documents is
supposed to be flexible and permit both semi-formal design teams but
also stave off these frequent unreasable demands for absolute
openness and transparency, I.E., to permit peole who wish to
voluntarily work together on a matter which is or will be considered
by a WG to exclude others from their discussions and not have to
report the details of such discussions.

Be careful not to concentrate on only one end of the spectrum and
adopt rules which screw up the other when those rules are used (or
abused) in ways you don't expect.

By being increasingly stringent in monitoring them and yielding to
complaints about design teams being to too closed or lacking
transparency, all you would do is recreate working groups. The result
would be a need for new text to allow two members of these now WGized
design teams to meet in the hall and talk privately, etc., etc.

While I sometimes have some doubts about design teams set up and
blessed by a WG chair, as being a temptation towards bias, I don't
think the practice needs any further regulation and I would say 
that it is important that "design teams" be able to be closed and
opaque, no matter how politically incorrect that may sound.

Donald

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 11:47 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Formalizing Design Teams

Hi Scott,

> >  I think some basic groundrules on
> > design teams are needed, at least to provide additional
> > transparancy.
> 
> 
> see http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/Design-Teams.txt

Thanks for the pointer.  In a number of cases, I think that
the guidences has not been followed, so perhaps we need
more vigilance in monitoring design teams.

John

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:12:50 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 9:32 AM
...
> opaque, no matter how politically incorrect that may sound.
...

Has anyone thought about extending the insurance coverage to
these "blessed" design teams in case questions of anti-competitive
behaviour arise?

Randy