Inline please,
Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 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.
don't no if I and Ekr is saying the same thing, what I'm wary about
is expectations created, an AD accepting a BoF creates expectations,
creating a Study Group would do so to a larger extent
/Loa
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>
--
Loa Andersson
Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@xxxxxxxx
loa@xxxxx
This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. http://www.astaro.com
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf