At Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:03:35 +0300,
Jari Arkko wrote:
But the issues with scheduling, lack of attention for important
topics, and low quality of new work proposals are real concerns.
I have a slightly different take on this than what you had above,
however.
INT is probably the most troublesome area with respect
to scheduling, and I generally do not have any free slots
during an IETF meeting. However, I don't think this
implies we shouldn't consider new work. Its not as if
the Internet was ready and nothing new was ever
needed. We have a number of serious issues and
new demands to meet. But we need to actively manage
the set of things we work on. Some of the tools
we need to consider include actually stopping WGs
that have completed their task, rechartering, management
restructuring (e.g., merging groups), questioning
whether a non-delivering WG needs to continue
to exist and consume slots, and yes, even new work.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't consider new work either,
and we do consider new work under the current system. However,
since the amount of work we can do is to a great degree constant,
that means that any new work should be more important than
whatever we're doing now. Making it easier to start new
work (which is pretty much an explicit goal of this proposal)
is likely to create a situation in which more new work gets
done at the expense of current work. That might or might
not be good depending on what one thinks of the current work.
Finally, it's unclear the extent to which SGs are intended to
transition directly to WGs without going through another BOF
phase. I have two concerns here:
1. It will be hard for the IESG to deny "successful" SGs the right
to form a WG.
Saying NO is still going to be needed.
Absolutely. But I think this is going to create a structural
near-imperative to saying yes, in the same way that the IESG
feels strong pressure to advance documents from chartered
WGs, even if it's clear in retrospect that the output isn't
of much value and probably shouldn't have been chartered in
the first place.
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf