Hello Ahmad, Ahmad Muhanna wrote: > > > > > 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. > [Ahmad] > Hi Scott, I do not mean to create a discussion here, but I just could not > resist:) > > That is right, but so far we have one model which has been successful > in running the Discussion forum. My understanding of seamless change, is > NOT to change the whole model at once! At least keeping the part that > works well and introduce a partial change is safer. If down the road we > find out that this model (option # 2) does not work, we always can fall > back to adopt Model # 1 later.
I am not sure I'm following you here... The model we currently operate under entails a single non-WG meeting and having both general discussion and document progression under that umbrella. Starting from there, I think the slightest/seamless change is to continue handling the same things but turn the non-WG umbrella into a WG one, with designated WG chairs. Best, --julien _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
