Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> One of the reasons some WGs linger is that their function requires
>> continuous tweakage, GSSAPI/KITTEN being an example. Better to have
>> one WG with the purpose of lingering than four lingering past their
>> sell-by.
> Yes, but there is a cost to the participants of being on an "area
> maintenance" WG when there are long threads that have nothing to do
> with the protocols on which they are experts. (It would be different
> if we used Usenet news readers, which I think you would agree)
I thought about having one WG with multiple mailing lists, but my experience
is that chairs get overworked.
Having more chairs means more opportunities for diversity, so I am for having
more WGs that are often quiet. Although even chairs bitrot on process.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
