A very reasonable point, though there are also counter arguments.
But that's a discussion that's not for this list which for better
or worse has to work with the current IETF custom & practice.
Stephen,
Ok. This is a pretty serious disconnect.
I described a process and you have said that it is a reasonable
perspective on the process you are following. You have then declared
the issue out of bounds for this venue, characterizing it as as
"established practice".
The IETF has formal documentation on its practices. It does not even
require a BOF.
From RFC 2418:
...Note that an Area
Director MAY require holding an exploratory Birds of a Feather (BOF)
meeting, as described below, to gage the level of support for a
working group before submitting the charter to the IESG and IAB for
approval.
"Level of support" is different than declaring that a second or third
BOF must cater to random folks who show up and need a tutorial.
So, please point to the IETF documentation that characterizes the random
feedback at a BOF as "current IETF custom and practice" for preventing
formation of a working group.
Since you won't be able to cite it, I'll move on to the real problem here.
Working group formation requires:
* A real problem to work on.
* A committed, competent core of people willing to work on this.
* A competent draft charter that specifies reasonable goals,
constraints and schedule.
* A sponsoring AD
* Sufficient votes on the IESG. Each IESG member will use their
own criteria for deciding how to vote.
A BOF is an adjunct part of the process, designed to provide advisory
input.
What is being thoroughly missed, here, is the difference between
"demonstrating a sufficient level of support" and "giving a veto to
random folks who don't want the thing to happen".
The first looks for an adequate, affirmative constituency. The latter
doesn't.
d/
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org