>> My only objection here is the words "at least..." I think we want to >> restrict the charter at this point, not set ourselves up to increase >> scope from the start. I think we're looking for an upper bound, not a >> baseline. > > I understand that important reason, but I prefer not and leave it as > *baseline*, because we are in the stage to think in and out the box, > open ideas and welcome new input not to keep it into some drafts' > scope. The proposed charter does form a solid framework direction not > structure. If we do restrict work to thoes drafts then the drafts are > the source of charter not the participants' ideas joining the WG. I > think it is good to encourage new participants to join as well from > the charter. As I am not an author of any of thoes drafts (still under > my and others review) and thoes drafts still didn't get to alot > discussions, that will be my opinion :)
The problem we currently have isn't leaving the door open to new ideas, or even generating new ideas --we seem to have tons of ideas about where this work could/would be useful. The problem we currently have is limiting the scope narrowly enough to do effective work --to chunk the work up into small enough pieces to make it tractable. I.e., we are in danger of biting off more than we can chew, so we need to slice into smaller pieces. Not that we don't want to eat the whole thing, but we don't want to eat it right this second, and all in one bite, lest we choke... :-) Russ -- <>< [email protected] [email protected] _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
