On 8/15/2014 7:04 AM, t.p. wrote:
> Alia
>
> What I saw you say was
> "One driver for this reorganization is to get to "right-size" working
> groups
> that are large
> enough to have critical mass and not so large as to have poor
> signal-to-noise for participants or suffer from disengagement."
>
> Trouble is, while there are some WG in the IETF that suffer from this,
> arguably the list we are on now, I would not place any of the Routing WG
> in that category. Historically, MPLS would have been in the days of
> MPLS-TP but those days are long gone so unless and until another SDO
> wants to crank up the volume on a Routing WG, I fail to see it as
> justification for a reorganisation.
>
> And yes, I think that this is an IETF matter, not just one for a Routing
> list.
Tom,
Which "this" are you referring to:
disengagement/signal-to-noise/bystanders/tourists/etc., the rational for
the routing are reorganization, or the reorganization as a whole?
(I sent some questions on the process aspect of the last yesterday, but
to routing-discussion@xxxxxxxx not this list.)
Lou
>
> Tom Petch