+1 (this is also the practice in OPSAWG)
Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Harrington > Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 1:06 AM > To: 'Sri Gundavelli'; 'Donald Eastlake' > Cc: 'Internet Area' > Subject: Re: [Int-area] intarea charter > > +1 > > dbh > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli > > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 6:31 PM > > To: Donald Eastlake > > Cc: Internet Area > > Subject: Re: [Int-area] intarea charter > > > > Agree. Treating it like any other group with WG chairs running the > > business, under AD supervison, makes more sense. > > > > Sri > > > > > > On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Donald Eastlake wrote: > > > > > I am also opposed to Area Directors serving as WG chairs > of WGs in > > > their own Area. > > > > > > Donald > > > ============================= > > > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-634-2066 (home) > > > 155 Beaver Street > > > Milford, MA 01757 USA > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> +1, but I think you should consider "hiring" a co-chair who > > >> isn't an AD at an early stage. It can get a bit awkward if a > > >> document is proposed for adoption that the ADs are > unhappy about, > > >> unless there is an independent chair to make the consensus call. > > >> > > >> Regards > > >> Brian > > >> > > >> On 2009-10-01 07:44, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > >>> > > >>> I support the idea of creating this WG, and the proposed > > charter looks > > >>> good to me. > > >>> > > >>> Margaret > > >>> > > >>> On Sep 30, 2009, at 12:26 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> All, > > >>>> > > >>>> We have had Internet Area meetings for a number of years > > now, but I'm > > >>>> not sure if anyone's noticed that its formally just a > > meeting and not > > >>>> an official working group. We do have a list, we talk > > about important > > >>>> topics during the meetings, and sometimes we even > > progress documents > > >>>> that have no obvious home elsewhere. We run working > > group last calls, > > >>>> but formally the documents that we take forward are AD > sponsored > > >>>> individual submissions. > > >>>> > > >>>> Ralph and I have reviewed the situation and we think > > that it would > > >>>> be useful to turn the group into an official working group. > This > > >>>> has a number of benefits: > > >>>> > > >>>> - the group would show up in the tools.ietf.org/wg/<WG> > directory > > >>>> and other systems > > >>>> > > >>>> - we'd have a charter that describes to everyone what > the group > > >>>> is supposed to talk about > > >>>> > > >>>> - the process would be clearer for, say, adopting a document > > >>>> > > >>>> - the ADs would get also a blue dot in their IETF > badges :-) or > > >>>> depending on workload, we could hire other chairs, > secretaries, > > >>>> and so on to help with the group > > >>>> > > >>>> In other words, the group wouldn't be such a special > case for us > > >>>> to deal with. Thoughts? We have included a suggested charter > > >>>> below. > > >>>> > > >>>> Jari and Ralph > > >>>> > > >>>> ----- > > >>>> > > >>>> Internet Area Working Group (intarea) > > >>>> > > >>>> Last modified: 2009-09-30 > > >>>> > > >>>> Chairs: > > >>>> Jari Arkko <[email protected]> Ralph Droms > <[email protected]> > > >>>> > > >>>> Internet Area (int) Directors: > > >>>> Jari Arkko <[email protected]> Ralph Droms > <[email protected]> > > >>>> > > >>>> Internet Area Advisor: > > >>>> Jari Arkko <[email protected]> Ralph Droms > <[email protected]> > > >>>> > > >>>> Mailing Lists: > > >>>> General Discussion: [email protected] Subscribe online at: > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > > >>>> > > >>>> Description of Working Group: > > >>>> > > >>>> The Internet Area Working Group (INTAREA WG) acts as a forum > for > > >>>> discussing far-ranging topics that affect the entire > area. Such > > >>>> topics include, for instance, address space issues, > > basic IP layer > > >>>> functionality, and architectural questions. > > >>>> > > >>>> The Internet Area receives occasional proposals for the > > development > > >>>> and publication of RFCs that are not in scope of an > > existing working > > >>>> group and do not justify the formation of a new working > > group. The > > >>>> INTAREA WG will also serve as the forum for developing such > work > > >>>> items in the IETF. > > >>>> > > >>>> The working group milestones are updated as needed to reflect > the > > >>>> current work items and their associated milestones. > > Significant new > > >>>> work items will be brought for approval with the IESG. > > >>>> > > >>>> Milestones: > > >>>> > > >>>> December 2009 Submission of IPID document to the IESG as PS > > >>>> March 2010 Submission of tunneling issues document > > to the IESG as > > >>>> Info > > >>>> December 2010 Submission of SEAL document to the IESG as Exp > > >>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> Int-area mailing list > > >>>> [email protected] > > >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> Int-area mailing list > > >>> [email protected] > > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > > >>> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Int-area mailing list > > >> [email protected] > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Int-area mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
