Re: Reforming the BOF Process (was Declining the ifare bof for Chicago)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



In many cases, we do this in any event, just via a more heavy-weight process, namely by requiring working groups to go through a process of requirements, frameworks, architecture and other meta-documents. One can discuss how successful these have been compared to the effort expended, but moving this process earlier seems helpful, as it now follows a fairly drawn-out bar BOF -- scheduled meeting-that's-not- called-a-BOF -- real BOF -- IESG deliberation -- WG formation process. In other words, having a low-cost version that allows people to discuss the problem, without committing to a solution, would be helpful.

On Jun 15, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:

I agree that the "5 criteria" are not necessarily applicable to the IETF. However, I think that providing the Study Group with explicit WG formation criteria at its inception is useful, whatever that criteria may be. That way all parties understand what the Study Group is expected to accomplish, and how its success will be judged.

With respect to measuring interest, it is true that the IETF is more informal, but I do think that it would help to be more explicit about what we mean by "interest". For example, with respect to Study Group formation, we are talking about interest in the Study Group, on the part of potential participants in that Study Group. Determining interest in a potential WG would put off until later and would be gauged based on Study Group participation and review of Study Group documents, including the Charter.



_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]