There are probably a few more reasons the formation of
a Study Group should be denied - for example a clear lack of consistency with
the IETF mission, or the fact that the same problem was already solved in the
IETF or in some other place. Those should be however clearly stated, to make the
criteria for the initial decision more predictable.
Dan
One of the goals of separating the Study Group formation process from the WG formation process is to make the goals and feedback process more explicit.
From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_aboba@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 9:12 PM
To: Jari Arkko
Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Reforming the BOF Process (was Declining the ifare bof forChicago)
If the IESG denies formation of a Study Group based on lack of interest, that is an unambiguous signal: go away. If a Study Group is formed, then a limited and explicit set of goals are agreed upon.
Formation of a Study Group would require appointment of a Study Group Chair, a very limited set of milestones (a WG Charter, perhaps a Problem Statement), a timeframe (Study Group milestones should probably not be repeatedly extended), and a well defined set of WG formation criteria (agreement on the Charter, wider review of the Problem Statement, etc.). Review of Study Group documents would utilize the same process that we use to track progress on other IETF documents, so that the feedback would be explicit and the next steps in the process would be clear.
> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:53:31 +0300
> From: jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx
> To: bernard_aboba@xxxxxxxxxxx
> CC: dromasca@xxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Reforming the BOF Process (was Declining the ifare bof for Chicago)
>
> Bernard,
>
> I think your proposal is worth thinking about. The current BOF process
> is very on/off in its nature. One of the problems that it is causing is that
> when work is not far enough, a BOF or WG cannot be established. This
> in turns leave the perception that the IETF is completely ignoring the
> topic. In reality, a denied WG/BOF might mean anything ranging from
> "go away with your stupid idea" to "this is very important and interesting,
> but please do <X> first so that the WG can be chartered or BOF held".
> We try to give the right perception, of course, but sometimes its hard to
> convince people who can only observe the existence/non-existence
> of an official activity.
>
> Jari
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf