Jari Arkko allegedly wrote on 10/12/2009 11:18 AM: > 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 ADs could show up and lead those discussions without having to chair the WG. > 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. Model #1 makes sense to me, for the positive and negative reasons you cite for both. It's much easier just to have one group. _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
