At Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:03:35 +0300, Jari Arkko wrote: > But the issues with scheduling, lack of attention for important > topics, and low quality of new work proposals are real concerns. > I have a slightly different take on this than what you had above, > however. > > INT is probably the most troublesome area with respect > to scheduling, and I generally do not have any free slots > during an IETF meeting. However, I don't think this > implies we shouldn't consider new work. Its not as if > the Internet was ready and nothing new was ever > needed. We have a number of serious issues and > new demands to meet. But we need to actively manage > the set of things we work on. Some of the tools > we need to consider include actually stopping WGs > that have completed their task, rechartering, management > restructuring (e.g., merging groups), questioning > whether a non-delivering WG needs to continue > to exist and consume slots, and yes, even new work. I'm not saying that we shouldn't consider new work either, and we do consider new work under the current system. However, since the amount of work we can do is to a great degree constant, that means that any new work should be more important than whatever we're doing now. Making it easier to start new work (which is pretty much an explicit goal of this proposal) is likely to create a situation in which more new work gets done at the expense of current work. That might or might not be good depending on what one thinks of the current work. > > Finally, it's unclear the extent to which SGs are intended to > > transition directly to WGs without going through another BOF > > phase. I have two concerns here: > > > > 1. It will be hard for the IESG to deny "successful" SGs the right > > to form a WG. > > > > Saying NO is still going to be needed. Absolutely. But I think this is going to create a structural near-imperative to saying yes, in the same way that the IESG feels strong pressure to advance documents from chartered WGs, even if it's clear in retrospect that the output isn't of much value and probably shouldn't have been chartered in the first place. -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf