Hi Ahmad, > 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. => IMHO, we are not supposed to run test(s) as this can lead to a "mess" if we take into account the generally "slow" IETF ways of moving forward... IMHO, it is better to stay on an already tested and successful path (i.e., option 1). Regards, Wassim H. > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
