Hi Jari,
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 prefer this first option, at least for now, as it has two beneficial
properties:
(1) This will continue to be the forum for the whole INT area to get
together, so it will (hopefully) continue to be well attended by people from
all parts of the INT area.
(2) It will not be the group's only/primary purpose to publish documents.
So, if there aren't any INT-area-wide issues that require documents, there
won't be a sense that we need to go find documents to keep the group alive...
I'd like the charter to make it clear that the group's primary role is
to serve as a forum for discussion of topics that are of wide interest to
the Internet area, and to facility intra-area discussion and collaboration.
As part of those discussions, we may choose to take on work items that
(due to their topic, scope, expected duration, etc.) do not fit well into
any other INT area WG, and that do not warrant creation of a separate WG.
IMO, we should have a fairly high bar for acceptance of intarea WG items.
We should strive to ensure that they represent INT area consensus, not just
the interest/consensus of a small subgroup with little/no vocal objection
from the group. I think that we should cite the TSVWG criteria for accepting
new work, and the ADs should hold the WG chairs accountable for ensuring
that those criteria are met before work items are accepted.
If we find that combining the groups results in a situation where the
documents are being given too much attention and the primary purpose of the
group is getting lost, we can consider what it makes sense to do then --
drop/farm out some work items, schedule more meeting time, or split the group
in two (although that has risks, as you mentioned in your message). It has
been my experience that it will be easier to move from one group to two
if/when we find that we need two groups than it will be to merge two
groups back together if/when we find that we would have been better off with
just one. So, I'd err on the side of keeping the group together, for now.
Margaret
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
