ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF

2001-10-12 11:40:02
[ trimming the cc list to just ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org ]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Susan Harris wrote:

    I'd second Dave's suggestion that we leave the POISSON list as
    is. Aside from the overhead of multiple lists, confusion might reign
    about which list is discussing which topic, with people ending up
    posting to multiple lists, etc.

If there are multiple lists than there must be multiple working groups
(or BOFs with the goal of becoming a working group).  This would be
similar to the ordinary way in which any area in the IETF operates.
Note that the model is to operate sort of like an area without actually
being one.

Thus, there should be no additional confusion than that which IETF
participants already experience.  :-)

This is why all discussions start in one place, the IETF general list.
And it needs to be that list and not a separate "process" list in order
to be exposed to the greatest cross section of the community (if not the
entire community).

As with any IETF issue, if the discussion warrants detailed attention
(as a BOF with a tentative goal of becoming a working group), then a
separate list is created and discussion moves there.  Harald has already
suggested that perhaps the threshold for what needs to move will be
lower for process issues than it ordinarily is for issues on the IETF
list.  That is something we will have to determine as the need arises.


Jim
Co-Chair of POISSON but speaking for myself

-- 
--
James M. Galvin <galvin(_at_)acm(_dot_)org>

    
    > The increased focus may also help with the problem that POISSON has had 
    > with meeting at IETFs: when it is scheduled opposite other meetings, 
there 
    > will always be participants who have no possibility of attending; in 
    > particular, most of the IESG will be busy in other meetings.
    > More focused WGs will not need so much attention.
    
    True, fewer people would attend the more focused groups, but wouldn't
    they still face scheduling conflicts with other WGs?
    (Feel free to tell me if I've missed the point ...)
    
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
    manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/ob/adm.pl>