> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Jari Arkko > Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 8:18 AM > To: Internet Area > Subject: Re: [Int-area] intarea charter > > 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.
I agree with path one (above). Have a single mailing list and a single meeting at each IETF (one or multiple time slots as necessary). Then, simply identify which agenda items correspond to the wg and which correspond to the general area-wide discussions. (For that matter, interleave the wg and non-wg topics so folks don't attend 1/2 of the meeting and skip out on the rest.) Fred [email protected] > 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
