WGs already have a charter and WG chairs. It would be *very* unusual to decide to revoke a WG's charter between the time that the request to meet has been made and the secretariat puts together a draft IETF charter (much less unusual to update a WG charter in a way that is fully consistent with the meeting request). BOF requests come in with proposals that vary widely in terms of how clear or how focused they are, how important the work appears to be, and so on. They require some degree of evaluation on the part of the responsible ADs (with input from appropriate others). Thus they take more time to evaluate. Ross -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Worley, Dale R (Dale) Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 5:50 AM To: Russ Housley; Brian E Carpenter Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: RE: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment ________________________________________ From: wgchairs-bounces@xxxxxxxx [wgchairs-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Russ Housley [housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx] The deadline for BOF requests comes too soon after the end of one IETF meeting for the next one. We are hearing complaints, and subjectively, the quality of the request write-ups do reflect this situation. So, yes, the intent is to allow more time by shifting the BOF request deadline. _________________________________________ I would think that the more formal the session, the longer in advance that the need for the session will be reliably predicted. Since BOFs are less formal, the deadline for them should be *later* than for WG sessions, preferably very shortly before the IETF meeting. Dale _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf