Subject: RE: Restatement of my proposal from last night's plenary

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 15:23:49 -0000

Brian,

Unfortunately I couldn't make the meeting this time, because of the change
of date to November, so I don't have the full background to the discussion.

On the subject of "mechanistic rules", however, I do feel happier that the
pilot of my plane mechanically ( methodically ) checks through a list before
taking off.  You're right that methodology can't ensure quality - but it can
help ensure that somebody is checking the quality.

	Regards,

	Graham Travers

	International Standards Manager
	BTexact Technologies

	e-mail:   [email-masked]
	tel:      +44(0) 1359 235086
	mobile:   +44(0) 7808 502536
	fax:      +44(0) 1359 235087

	HWB279, PO Box 200,London, N18 1ZF, UK

	BTexact Technologies is a trademark of British Telecommunications
plc
	Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
	Registered in England no. 1800000

	This electronic message contains information from British
Telecommunications plc which may be privileged or confidential. The
information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity
named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information
is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please
notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or address above)
immediately.

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 22 November 2002 13:35
To: Dave Crocker
Cc: Charlie Perkins; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Restatement of my proposal from last night's plenary

Dave Crocker wrote:
...
> If folks
> have not yet read draft-huston-ietf-pact-00, they should read it now.

If you think that mechanistic rules will improve quality, then yes,
do read it.

A remark I wanted to make last night is that a fair number of the
phenomena that people don't like (such as noticing a problem late)
are pretty much inevitable and in the "deal with it" class. Mechanistic
rules won't help. A less complicated world would help, but that option
isn't avaialable.

I do strongly agree on the need for delegation, but that delegates
responsibility and liability, not just the fun of reading 2000
pages of drafts. So it's easily said, but not easily done.

    Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:05:50 +0100

> help ensure that somebody is checking the quality.

It was more the automatic timeouts I was getting at. I'm in favour
of setting target times, but not of killing WGs or publishing documents
automatically when the timers pop.

   Brian

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland