>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Eric> I think there's a more meta-issue here: do we think it would
Eric> be good for the IETF to have more WGs? If the answer is
Eric> "yes, then it makes sense to foster new work in various
Eric> ways. If the answer is "no" then it makes sense to treat
Eric> getting an effort ready for WG formation as a proxy for the
Eric> level of readiness of that effort. My general feeling is
Eric> that the answer is "no." In some areas, such as RAI, every
Eric> slot is filled and there are sometimes double bookings.
Eric> Even in other areas, conflicts are a serious problem and
Eric> documents that everyone agrees are important languish for
Eric> lack of attention. So, I'm not sure why a change that's
Eric> designed to make WG formation easier is a good thing--nor
Eric> that experimenting with such a change is.
Speaking as an individual, I think the answer to this question is a
lot closer to yes than to no. The answer is definitely closer to yes
if an effort is likely to bring in a number of participants who do not
normally participate in the IETF.
Eric> A related issue is that this puts pressure on ADs to approve
Eric> SGs for efforts that they would ordinarily simply refuse WGs
Eric> for. I.e., "OK, so you won't give us a WG, how about a
Eric> SG". Currently this document simply has it at the IESG's
Eric> discretion:
I think that Ad can manage this risk. ADs tend to get reasonably good
at saying no.
Eric> Arguably, SG formation should
Eric> be subject to an IETF LC in the same way that WG formation
Eric> is.
It's my understanding of the document that SG formation is subject to
ietf-wide review. I'm not sure that the IETF review in RFC 2418 nor
the same IETF review for SG formation is quite the same as an IETF LC,
but I do think the same IETF and IAB involvement is anticipated in the
SG process. The IAB is not involved in proposing SG formation
initially, although they are involved in reviewing whether that is a
good idea before it goes out to the wider IETF community.
I have no thoughts on the rest of your comments at this time.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf