Spencer,
On 12/10/2017 02:21, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> The IESG has spent considerable time discussing how we can improve our
> ability to charter new work as soon as it’s ready and ensure proposals have
> the resources needed for success.
I pretty much support the proposed approach as far as WG-forming BOFs
are concerned; and I think we should also support the IESG's right to
Just Say No too. I've been amazed for years by this apparent constant
of nature: the number of IETF WGs is approximately 120. Why?
However:
...
> The IESG has received some BOF requests that describe interesting problems
> at considerable length but do not clearly identify what the BOF proponents
> want the IETF to do. When that happens, we cannot approve a BOF intended to
> form a working group.
>
> In some cases, area directors might approve a non-WG-forming BOF to tease
> out the details of the BOF proposal, but often that isn’t the best way
> forward.
This bothers me, because it makes non-WG-forming BOFs sound like second
class citizens, and I think that's wrong. A non-WG-forming BOF has two
possible outcomes (in general terms):
1. There's something here that seems to need doing. Start working towards
a WG-forming BOF.
2. There's nothing coherent here. Forget about it for now, as far as
the IETF is concerned. (There may be subsidiary outcomes here, like
suggesting some IRTF activity, but as far as IETF resources go, it's
over.)
Both of these are good outcomes from the IETF's viewpoint.
Brian