I think the question is whether the Experiment will collect sufficient data to determine whether it would be useful to keep it going, and if so, what changes need to be made. Currently, the document states that demonstration of interest is a prerequisite, but little else. However, interest by itself is probably not enough to allow a SG to have a decent chance of success. Figuring out when a SG can be profitably formed may turn out to be an important learning from the experiment, but the question is whether the current proposal will provide that information. Are we asking the IESG to identify which RFC 2418 criteria were not met for WG formation?
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 9/28/2007 5:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [email protected]; Bernard Aboba; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02 I guess what I'm interested in is the boundary between categories 1 and 2. Evaluating the usefulness of this SG experiment would benefit also from knowing what kinds proposals ended up in category 1. (Although that might be difficult to do in an objective and neutral way -- after all, for every work proposal, there's probably at least one person who think's it very clear and there's plenty of demand :-) Best regards, Pasi > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Jari Arkko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 28 September, 2007 14:16 > To: Eronen Pasi (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki) > Cc: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02 > > Thanks for your review, Pasi! > > > One possible addition that might help in evaluating the experiment > > when it ends: according to the current text, IESG is required to > > inform the community of any Study Groups formed. I think decisions > > where a SG was *not* formed would be equally interesting. > > > Yes. > > But generally speaking, new work proposals can be classified in > three categories: > > 1) Too confused, no clear demand, etc. > 2) Demand is clear, but work remains to determine what > exactly the group should do > 3) Demand and details are all clear. > > A proposal from the first category cannot progress. In the > second category we'd consider an SG, and in the third > a WG. > > In terms of reporting to the community and evaluating results, > we try to be as clear as possible about the status of the different > efforts whether or not we have an ongoing experiment. But > its clear that understanding whether the SG concept helped > is interesting. Just that it may be hard to compare a proposal > from category 1 with another one from 2 or 3. > > Jari > >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
