Hi Jari, I support option 2. This way, the discussion forum will continue to be chaired by the ADs as it is currently being done.
Thanks! Regards, Ahmad > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko > Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 10:18 AM > To: Internet Area > Subject: Re: [Int-area] intarea charter > > Thank you for all the comments that we received. They gave me > at least a lot of food for thought. > > We will send out a new charter proposal soon, but first I > would like to get some input on direction we should take. > This relates to the dual nature of INTAREA, what work gets > accepted, and who should manage the group. As you all know, > the group has so far dealt with both area-ranging topics and > documents. On some other areas these two functions have been > separated into different meetings, one area meeting and > another group for progressing documents. On some areas there > is a fairly large number of documents to handle as well, for > us it has been a little bit less. > > I believe there are two possible paths forward. The first is > to keep the group still as one group. The benefit of this > approach is that time can be spent where it is most urgently > needed, e.g., a large area-wide topic could take an entire > meeting slot. It would also be easy to deal with topics that > start out as area-wide discussions but result in a > recommendation in the form of an RFC (e.g., shared ISP > address). Since the group deals with documents along with > everything else, we'd get non-AD chairs who would also manage > the area-wide discussions. That would be with input from the > ADs of course, and Ralph and I really keen on delegating > anyway so this would be fine with us. > > The second possibility is to create two groups, a discussion > forum and a document development group. The benefit of this > approach is that the two roles are clearly separated and > similar to what has been done on other areas. Two sets of > chairs would be needed, and at least the ones for the > document part would not be the ADs. A potential downside is > that if we create a new group in a place where we > traditionally have not had that much work, we might open an > avenue for publishing unnecessary documents, documents that > were rejected by existing working groups or BOFs, etc. > Scheduling the two groups might also be harder than it is > now, as the time split between the two would be fixed. > > Do you have any thoughts on which model would be preferable? > > Jari > > _______________________________________________ > 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
