Eric, > I'm not saying that we shouldn't consider new work either, > and we do consider new work under the current system. OK > 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. > I think the goal should be to make the process itself smooth, and concentrate on the question of relevance, feasibility, community support, and available resources as the deciding factors for taking up new work. > 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. > The structural near-imperative is somewhat self-inflicted, IMHO. I would not want to have such a policy for SG to WG transition, and I think this could be made clear in the proposal if it isn't already. Jari _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf