So, I am hearing here two conflicting messages:
1. We can't consider a "horizontal" split, since we need
cross-fertilisation and cross-area review.
2. We aren't doing (that much) cross-area review, or at
least don't require it.
Hence, I think my question still stands: Might the benefits be
greater than the costs? Might we get (almost) as much cross-
fertilisation anyway?
If we need to plan meetings ahead for two years, why can't we
schedule once a two weeks meeting two years ahead, for an
experiment? Then we would have plenty of time, i.e. another two
years, to consider whether that experiment was useful at all. And if
two weeks is too much, maybe have a 1.5 weeks meeting (Sunday -
Tuesday) to start with? Of course, the point would be not to spread
out all areas throughout the time but concentrate "horizontal" areas
towards one of the ends and try to distribute the WGs in the
"vertical" areas accordingly.
Taking on purpose a simplistic view, to greatest drawback seems to be
that some valuable people working on different areas would need to
stay at IETF meetings for about 6 weeks instead of 3 weeks. (For the
experiment 4 vs. 3 weeks).
I'm suspecting that a large impediment here is fear, i.e., what if we
split and those other people in the other IETF screw up things
there? If so, experimenting might help to overcome that.
--Pekka
On 22. september 2005 10:03 +0200 Pekka Nikander
<pekka(_dot_)nikander(_at_)nomadiclab(_dot_)com> wrote:
Have we (== the IETF) ever seriously considered splitting this
organisation "horizontally"? That is, instead of having one IETF
worrying about all from sub-IP issues to (some) applications, have
two ones, one more focusing on issues at the IP layer and directly
above and below it, and the other one on issues "above" that?
On Sep 22, 2005, at 13:28, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Actually that has been discussed, as have the scope boundaries
at the "top" (apps) and "bottom" (sub-IP). And the diffculty always
is the need for cross-fertilization and cross-area review.
Do you think that applications protocols can be designed with
only a liaison relationship to transport, or transport with
only a liaison relationship to the network layer?
On Sep 22, 2005, at 14:04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Many times. The Standard Next Message is that:
- the people who have clues in both areas are very valuable to the
organization, because it's exactly them who provide the "cross-area
review" that we're so proud of
- if we split it, these people will either go to 6 meetings a year
or stop coming to one set
That said, I've argued at times that we should try some time to
have at least one meeting "split" - where different groups of
groups meet in different places. However, experimentation like this
is significantly in conflict with the ideal of planning meetings 2
years ahead.
On Sep 23, 2005, at 1:08, Sam Hartman wrote:
The current structure does not require document be reviewed by all
areas. I can (and sometmies do) record a no objection vote because I
believe that adequate review has taken place without me reading a
document.
On Sep 23, 2005, at 8:59, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
That's correct. IESG ballot procedure does require 2/3 of the ADs to
record either a YES or a NO OBJECTION for a standards track or BCP
document. According to
http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/voting-procedures.txt :
- "No Objection" means "I would not object if this document went
forward".
examples where No Objection might be used include:
- I read it & have no problem with it
- I read the protocol action & trust the AD so have no problem
- I listened to the discussion and have no problem
This may be interpreted as "I have no clue or have no cycles",
in that you exercise the ability to move a document forward on the
basis of trust towards the other ADs
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf