One of the goals of separating the Study Group formation process from the WG
formation process is to make the goals and feedback process more explicit.
If the IESG denies formation of a Study Group based on lack of interest, that
is an unambiguous signal: go away. If a Study Group is formed, then a limited
and explicit set of goals are agreed upon.
Formation of a Study Group would require appointment of a Study Group Chair, a
very limited set of milestones (a WG Charter, perhaps a Problem Statement), a
timeframe (Study Group milestones should probably not be repeatedly extended),
and a well defined set of WG formation criteria (agreement on the Charter,
wider review of the Problem Statement, etc.). Review of Study Group documents
would utilize the same process that we use to track progress on other IETF
documents, so that the feedback would be explicit and the next steps in the
process would be clear.
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:53:31 +0300> From:
jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net> To:
bernard_aboba(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com> CC: dromasca(_at_)avaya(_dot_)com;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> Subject: Re: Reforming the BOF Process (was
Declining the ifare bof for Chicago)> > Bernard,> > I think your proposal is
worth thinking about. The current BOF process> is very on/off in its nature.
One of the problems that it is causing is that> when work is not far enough,
a BOF or WG cannot be established. This> in turns leave the perception that
the IETF is completely ignoring the> topic. In reality, a denied WG/BOF might
mean anything ranging from> "go away with your stupid idea" to "this is very
important and interesting,> but please do <X> first so that the WG can be
chartered or BOF held".> We try to give the right perception, of course, but
sometimes its hard to> convince people who can only observe the
existence/non-existence> of an official activity.> > Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf