Hi,
On Mar 4, 2013, at 23:44, Allison Mankin
<allison(_dot_)mankin(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Was there something causative about extracting RAI from Transport?
a lot of thought went into making sure that the WGs that went on to form RAI
formed a cohesive whole. In hindsight, we should have thought more about how
cohesive the set of WGs was that ended up remaining in TSV. After the split,
TSV consisted of an assortment of odd WGs without much of a shared identity.
Moreover, all the WGs that had any sort of direct relation to product features
were moved into RAI. (With the exception of storage, but they are their own
little clique.) That severely limited the pool of AD candidates from industry,
because it's difficult to construct a business case to one's management.
That has been changing over the last year or two, with Google, Apple and others
beginning some serious work on extending and enhancing transport protocols in
an attempt to improve latencies. Unfortunately, the transport folks at such
employers are probably to valuable internally to be able to volunteer.
Finally, let's not forget that this year was a special case, because the
incumbent was forced to pull out at a very late stage of the process. This left
the community very little time to come up with alternatives. I believe that if
that had happened earlier, we would have been able to deepen the pool.
Lars