In many cases, we do this in any event, just via a more heavy-weight
process, namely by requiring working groups to go through a process
of requirements, frameworks, architecture and other meta-documents.
One can discuss how successful these have been compared to the effort
expended, but moving this process earlier seems helpful, as it now
follows a fairly drawn-out bar BOF -- scheduled meeting-that's-not-
called-a-BOF -- real BOF -- IESG deliberation -- WG formation
process. In other words, having a low-cost version that allows people
to discuss the problem, without committing to a solution, would be
helpful.
On Jun 15, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
I agree that the "5 criteria" are not necessarily applicable to the
IETF. However, I think that providing the Study Group with
explicit WG formation criteria at its inception is useful, whatever
that criteria may be. That way all parties understand what the
Study Group is expected to accomplish, and how its success will be
judged.
With respect to measuring interest, it is true that the IETF is
more informal, but I do think that it would help to be more
explicit about what we mean by "interest". For example, with
respect to Study Group formation, we are talking about interest in
the Study Group, on the part of potential participants in that
Study Group. Determining interest in a potential WG would put off
until later and would be gauged based on Study Group participation
and review of Study Group documents, including the Charter.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf