----- Original Message -----
From: "Lou Berger" <lberger@xxxxxxxx>
To: "t.p." <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "IETF Discussion Mailing List" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 1:06 PM
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?
<tp>
Lou
I was referring back to all of the quote I gave from Alia. I am aware
of Alia's stated objectives, to whit,
"improving the quality, speed, and
experience of getting work done in the IETF Routing Area. "
but then suffer from a disconnect when I read about reorganising the
WGs.
On the routing-discussion list, the focus seemed to be on changing the
MPLS WG which, to me, seems not to need any serious change at this point
in time. It was stated that there is insufficient time at an IETF
meeting for all those who wanted to present their I-Ds to MPLS to
present to their I-Ds; other Areas solve this by not presenting I-Ds,
rather than reorganising:-)
As a chair in a different context, I have reorganised, and seen the
benefits thereof happen, but I have also worked in an environment where
the culture was to reorganise every year, and really reorganise every
few years - chaos, I would call that. So, I am sceptical that any
benefits will accrue in this case.
Tom Petch
(I sent some questions on the process aspect of the last yesterday, but
to routing-discussion@xxxxxxxx not this list.)
Lou
>
> Tom Petch