At Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:13:50 -0700, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote: > > Thanks Jari, Eric. Some notes inline ... > > On 10/8/2007 12:03 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > <snip> > > > >> Currently this > >> document simply has it at the IESG's discretion: > >> > >> If at any point during the Working Group formation process, including > >> after a first or second BoF session, interest within the IETF and > >> end-user community has been demonstrated, but one or more Working > >> Group formation criteria outlined in [RFC2418] Section 2.1 has not > >> yet been met, the IESG MAY propose that a Study Group be formed. > >> > >> This seems ripe for abuse of the kind I outlined above. IMO this > >> document would benefit from a clearer statement of the conditions > >> under which it was appropriate to form an SG, thus reducing pressure > >> on ADs. > > I am not sure what kind of "abuse" you are worried about Eric. Please > clarify. You trimmed out the section where I explained: A related issue is that this puts pressure on ADs to approve SGs for efforts that they would ordinarily simply refuse WGs for. I.e., "OK, so you won't give us a WG, how about a SG". Currently this document simply has it at the IESG's discretion: To clarify, the reasonably high bar for WG formation plus the two BOF rule has the effect of enabling ADs to say so "No" to work that really is not ready. The concern is that efforts which are denied WGs will turn around and ask for an SG and that it will be difficult to turn them down even though they really need to go back to the drawing board. > > This would be helpful. Bernard, Laksminath, any ideas? > > I don't think we should make it algorithmic and instead should leave the > steering, direction and judgment aspects of an IESG job intact. Nor did I argue differently. However, there is a difference between exercising judgement and unguided sole discretion. My concern is that the language in the draft errs to far in the latter direction. > We could make the guiding text more precise (perhaps include some > specific criteria), if that is what the community wants. Yes, I think this would be valuable. > >> Arguably, SG formation should be subject to an IETF LC in the > >> same way that WG formation is. > >> > > > > Hm. I believed this was already the case. SGs are subject to exactly > > the same process as WGs, and I was assuming that like, WG formation, > > SG formation would include discussion in the IESG, consultation > > with the IAB, and IETF Last Call. > > > > Perhaps this needs clarification. Authors? > > We could clarify, but the intent is to follow the WG process for formation. In that case, I think it needs clarification. > >> 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. > > > >> 2. BOFs are a defined in-person event at which everyone knows that > >> WG formation is being considered. This provides an opportunity > >> for public high bandwidth discussion of that topic. I don't > >> think an LC on the IETF list is an adequate substitute. > >> > > > > Good point. Bernard, Laksminath -- any ideas here? > > I disagree with Eric here. I believe that we are not a meeting based > organization and should be making more of these important decisions via > email where we have more time to consider the proposals carefully. Well, you might prefer that the IETF functioned this way, but I think it pretty clearly does not. As a practical matter, nearly all WGs have BOFs prior to their formation, and that's the only time that there is high-bandwidth cross-area discussion. That same discussion by and large does not happen on the IETF mailing list during LC. IMO the effect of eliminating the in-person time will be to eliminate said discussion, not transfer it to the mailing list. If you wish the IETF to do more work via email, I think the first step would be to improve the quality of the email discussion. > My > observation based on some of the BoFs I have been involved with recently > is that far too much time is wasted between two BoF sessions. With > little or no discussion between sessions, a good portion of the meeting > time is used to get on the same page (again). I consider this a good indicator that the work is not ready to bring to the IETF. -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf