--On Thursday, 11 October, 2007 10:03 -0700 Lakshminath Dondeti
<ldondeti@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Just for the record, if the norm ends up being "Idea --> BoF-1
> --> BoF-2 --> SG --> WG," I would be very disappointed and
> would chalk that up under the law of unintended consequences
> :).
Unfortunately, there is some history in the IETF that might lead
someone who is even mildly cynical about the way procedures
unfold and are used (and it is probably obvious that I passed
"mildly" long ago) to predict that would be exactly the outcome,
unintended or not. To the extent to which the IESG tends to be
responsive to community input and sensitive to constraints about
meeting and management time --and I'd hope they would be
responsive to both -- it might take only a few loud voices
saying "not ready" to turn BOF1 into a requirement for BOF2
(arguably we see that already) and similar voices to turn the
outcome of BOF2 from "WG" into "SG and more consideration".
In practice, that might turn at least some SGs into exactly what
I think you are trying to avoid: an indeterminable series of
BOF-list sessions with a charter and under a different name.
That would also be an unintended consequence, but I don't see
how to avoid it other than to trust the IESG to manage SGs more
aggressively than they have historically managed WGs and to
assume that the community would vigorously support them in
applying that level of management.
I am hoping that "Idea --> SG --> WG" or "Idea --> BoF1
> --> SG --> WG" in that order become the norm (where SG is
> involved of course), especially when proponents of new work
> are people who may not be regulars at the IETF.
If the goal is really the education and socialization of
newcomers and refinement of their ideas, shouldn't we be
thinking about more direct, explicit, and efficient ways to do
that, rather than about new procedures and process steps?
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf