WGs already have a charter and WG chairs. It would be *very* unusual to decide
to revoke a WG's charter between the time that the request to meet has been
made and the secretariat puts together a draft IETF charter (much less unusual
to update a WG charter in a way that is fully consistent with the meeting
request).
BOF requests come in with proposals that vary widely in terms of how clear or
how focused they are, how important the work appears to be, and so on. They
require some degree of evaluation on the part of the responsible ADs (with
input from appropriate others). Thus they take more time to evaluate.
Ross
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Worley, Dale R (Dale)
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 5:50 AM
To: Russ Housley; Brian E Carpenter
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment
________________________________________
From: wgchairs-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[wgchairs-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
[housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com]
The deadline for BOF requests comes too soon after the end of one IETF
meeting for the next one. We are hearing complaints, and subjectively,
the quality of the request write-ups do reflect this situation. So, yes,
the intent is to allow more time by shifting the BOF request deadline.
_________________________________________
I would think that the more formal the session, the longer in advance that the
need for the session will be reliably predicted. Since BOFs are less formal,
the deadline for them should be *later* than for WG sessions, preferably very
shortly before the IETF meeting.
Dale
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf