One of the goals of separating the Study Group formation process from the WG
formation process is to make the goals and feedback process more explicit.
If the IESG denies formation of a Study Group based on lack of interest, that
is an unambiguous signal: go away. If a Study Group is formed, then a limited
and explicit set of goals are agreed upon.
Formation of a Study Group would require appointment of a Study Group Chair, a
very limited set of milestones (a WG Charter, perhaps a Problem Statement), a
timeframe (Study Group milestones should probably not be repeatedly extended),
and a well defined set of WG formation criteria (agreement on the Charter,
wider review of the Problem Statement, etc.). Review of Study Group documents
would utilize the same process that we use to track progress on other IETF
documents, so that the feedback would be explicit and the next steps in the
process would be clear.
> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:53:31 +0300> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]> Subject: Re: Reforming the
> BOF Process (was Declining the ifare bof for Chicago)> > Bernard,> > I think
> your proposal is worth thinking about. The current BOF process> is very
> on/off in its nature. One of the problems that it is causing is that> when
> work is not far enough, a BOF or WG cannot be established. This> in turns
> leave the perception that the IETF is completely ignoring the> topic. In
> reality, a denied WG/BOF might mean anything ranging from> "go away with your
> stupid idea" to "this is very important and interesting,> but please do <X>
> first so that the WG can be chartered or BOF held".> We try to give the right
> perception, of course, but sometimes its hard to> convince people who can
> only observe the existence/non-existence> of an official activity.> > Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
