Hello Julien, > -----Original Message----- > From: Laganier, Julien [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 11:12 AM > To: Muhanna, Ahmad (RICH1:2H10); Scott Brim; Jari Arkko > Cc: Internet Area > Subject: RE: [Int-area] intarea charter > > 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. [Ahmad] As I said, I am not here to start a discussion on this, because eventually the ADs will count the vote and move on. However, IMO, the success of this (open discussion) meeting is because it was run as an open forum with no WG like regulations, sort of. As soon as the whole thing becomes in the form of a regular WG, then we have a big responsibilities and a huge shoes to fill for the new WG chairs. My fear that people may loose interest in this WG and we loose the precious part of it. The open Discussion!
That is my analysis, if you believe in it, the answer seems obvious here:) then Option No. 2 is the way to go, if not, then you are very well welcome to cast your ballot for # 1, as you actually did:) Cheers! Ahmad > > Best, > > --julien > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
