On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
But how many of those things are actually going to be difficult or
controversial? Shouldn't we at least try and answer them using our
standard approach of having an open discussion on a wiki? If it turns
out we can't answer them that way, then we can try a more elaborate
approach then.
Naturally the process should be public and inclusive.
I expect most of this group's work would involve open discussion on wikis.
Wiki discussions can be enhanced by calls and in-person meetings,
suitably transcribed and shared - especially when getting input from
people who are not active wiki users.
A structure and timeline for work, and a group of committed good-faith
participants to provide a steady core for ongoing discussion, is a
good idea for any time-sensitive project. We don't want to appoint
FDC members themselves without more discussion and perhaps a
distributed selection process, but the background work should begin as
soon as possible.
As to 'which things would be controversial': as you demonstrated here,
even simple discussions can be dominated by a determined critic.
SJ