🚀 go-pugleaf

> You should not be so hard on yourself.  ISO OSI is designed by
> committees.  Clarity of system architecture and definition requires
> that the architect or designer really understand what he is trying to
> architect or define.  It is not clear that the ISO committees
> collectively really understand what they are trying to architect or
> define.  In fact, even if an individual on a committee really
> understands what he is trying to architect or define, it is extremely
> unlikely that he would be able to get his point of view across to the
> committee and as a consequence there is little likelihood of any sort
> of lucidity appearing in documents produced in such a forum.

Not that i disagree with your sentiments, but there are obvious questions
which follows from your statement:

    If an individual understands what s/he is trying to define why is it
"extremely unlikely" that s/he would be able explain this inside a committee?
[The ability to explain a concept is part of a good understanding of that
concept]

and

    Given that it is "extremely unlikely" that this hypothetical individual
would get the point across in a committee of people supposedly interested in
understanding the same problem, why would they be able to get the point across
outside a committee?

I do not believe that there are people who have a full understanding of what
they are trying to define (good understandings are rare enough) and that
cooperative development of ideas is essential. A question that interests me
is how do we cooperatively develop understanding / architectures / definitions;
without falling into the problems most committee structures fall into. A
"head-chef" solution isn't the only alternative to "too-many-cooks", and may
not be a solution at all!

alan.