>...> Also, I think that WGs lasting 10+ years should be sanctioned, why do we need them?
>
>For protocols needing continuous maintenance and/or operational enhancement.
Would it make more sense if we have WGs operating in a roadmap or release-by-release way?
When developing software/systems, it is a general practice to use the release concept, for example, both Cisco IOS and Juniper JunOS have been developed in a way of release by release.
A WG would continue as long as needed provided that there be a release of enough work to do.
Thanks,
Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 10:36 AM
To: tom petch <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>; STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@xxxxxxx>
Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: How to get diversity of nominees was Re: Diversity of candidates was Re: NomCom 2020 Announcement of Selections
On 27-Jan-21 22:47, tom petch wrote:
...
> One step forward would be to stop WG Chairs authoring I-D.
That would certainly have stopped me from ever being a WG Chair.
On 28-Jan-21 05:10, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
...> Also, I think that WGs lasting 10+ years should be sanctioned, why do we need them?
For protocols needing continuous maintenance and/or operational enhancement.
Brian
