Jari,
I think one group for now is the way forward, if the group gets too much work
it can always request two slots one for discussion on active documents
and one for the wide ranging issues.
But most of the time I think both can be accomplished in one slot (with
good time management).
As for scheduling topics for discussion that should be coordinated by the
chairs of the group and the AD's.
Olafur
At 11:18 12/10/2009, Jari Arkko wrote:
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
