Brian E Carpenter wrote: > (John's long and interesting message severely truncated) > > John C Klensin wrote: > >> ... We may need >> a way to have an "experimental" or "probationary" WG: to say to >> a group "we don't have much confidence in this, but you are >> welcome to try to run with it and prove us wrong... you get a >> fixed amount of time, after which the assumption is that we are >> going to shut you down unless you have produced enough useful >> results to justify rechartering". > > > The option that is often considered today is to charter a WG only > to produce a framework or architecture document (or if we're feeling > unusually courageous, a requirements document). No specifications > can be produced without subsequent rechartering. The charter could > certainly include an explicit decision point for recharter vs. close, > but that's implicit anyway. Also implicit is that the WG will ignore the edict to focus on the framework and architecture docs, and begin solution work -within the WG- as well. > I'm not sure what the "probationary" label would give that this > doesn't already achieve. The default that the WG closes down unless a case is made after the framework and architecture docs are presented, rather than the current apparent default that the WG will be able to recast its charter to fit the work it has already done on solutions during the probationary phase. Joe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf