Mary Barnes wrote:
There are a few topics for which mailing list discussion has failed
to reach consensus and would really benefit from f2f time. You can
look at SIP WG archives for example for a couple of the hot topics.
As chairs, we do try to push for completion of work on the mailing
lists, but this isn't always successful ...
The other issue is just the sheer volume of work incoming to RAI -
it's over 20% of overall IETF drafts per Jari's stats:
Thanks for the quick response. From my perspective, your opening words,
above, do suggest exactly the right underlying process and the right
role for f2f meeting time.
From what you posted before, however, it sounds as if there is a chronic
lack of meeting time. This means either that "too many" items can't be
solved on the list -- that is, that there is something about mailing
list exchanges that isn't working well enough.
Another possibility is what's suggested by your later text: there are too
many things being attempted. In other words, perhaps RAI is trying to
do too much too quickly? (I mean that as an honest question; I don't
really have an opinion of my own. ) RAI is certainly a broad area, but
it's hard to miss that even RAI folk take note of the massive workload.
Hence sipping, as a filter on proposals.
An industry can only absorb just so much out of standards arena. Is it
really absorbing (implementing, deploying, using) RAI output fast enough
to justify the current workload?
Also, note that 6 of the RAI WGs make up 50% of the top 12 WGs based
on volume of documents: http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/wgdistr.html
It's pretty easy to have lots of documents get generated. What is
difficult is building real energy (support and effort) to pursue them,
adopt them, and use them. Hence my question about industry uptake.
Ietf mailing list