----- Original Message ----- From: "George Michaelson" <ggm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Spencer Dawkins at IETF" <spencerdawkins.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 11:29 PM I think we should enforce proscriptive end of life. WG should be cheap to spin up, short lived, and killed early. We want a coppice, not a redwood forest. <tp> mmmmm so you would kill IDR, ISIS, CCAMP, MPLS, NETCONF, NETMOD, v6ops, OPSAWG, TCPM, PCE .... I would have rather a quiet life! Tom Petch What we do now, is we breed WG and associated chairs as long lived redwood trees and they shade the forest floor killing off new growth. If we couple that with forced WG chair selection by rote, we'd soon get to the nub of the matter. On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, Brian, > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> 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? > > > I assumed it was a natural law :-) ... > >> >> 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. > > > Then the text is giving the wrong impression. My apologies for that. > > I think they're important. > > Every area is different, but in TSV, I've approved about as many > non-WG-forming BOFs as WG-forming BOFs. They're not consolation prizes. > >> >> 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. > > > I'd broadly agree, with a couple of additions. > > It's worth reminding the community that BOFs aren't required to form a > working group, so I think this is "start working towards a new (or revised) > charter, and that might lead to a WG-forming BOF, or to a charter that is > ready to be approved without a BOF". > > I've been saying for a while that much of the new work proposals we see > that's interesting, spans working groups and even areas, so I think this is > "one or more new or revised charters". > >> >> 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.) > > > I agree, and "for now" is important. Even in the BOF wiki, we say "not > approved for this IETF", rather than "rejected until the end of time". If > the outcome should change at some point in the future, we're listening. > >> >> Both of these are good outcomes from the IETF's viewpoint. >> > +1. > > Spencer