John writes:
.. snip ..
Once we dispose of make it permanent, then we have more
flexibility about answers. What should we do? Well, for
starters and to be very blunt, I'm concerned about the
implicatons of an eight day review starting on 4 December. The
IESG has known for two years that
Hi,
My personal assessment is in favor of
1/ Move WGs (back) to permanent areas and close the area
...primarily because I think that both the general IETF work (as
represented by the WGs in the permanent Areas) *and* the work of
the transplanted SUB-IP WGs would benefit...and those gains
--On mandag, desember 09, 2002 22:59:20 -0800 Bill Strahm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have an interesting set of questions for you Harold,
1) How effective would the IESG be with 2 more members, more effective,
or less
My personal opinion is that it would be less effective, because there
Bert,
The explanation helps. Most of my comments were in hindsight
and I didn't intend to cast any blame on you (or Scott) for
being surprised. And, given the situation in which you found
yourselves, and the IESG generally, after Atlanta, I think the
way this is being handled is probably among
(i) I don't like these sorts of surprises that leave little time
to think about an important issue.
none of us do. which is why all the folk who are involved in the
sub-ip area have been discussing this for a while, culminating in a
general discussion in the sub-ip area meeting in atlanta.
We found out at the meeting that the vast majority wanted to keep
the area. But to say the least... I was suprised.
This doesn't surprise me. Nearly every working group wishes to perpetuate
itself indefinitely, long after its charter goals have been met (and often
grossly exceeded). People
Option 2 grows the IESG by 1 to 2 ADs. I concur with sediments
that this will likely make the IESG less effective, hence I oppose
option 2. And as Option 3 has a high chance of becoming option 1
(become temporary things have a tendency to become permanent), I
dislike it as well. I favor option
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 10:21:59PM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly wrote:
The opinions expressed so far seem to show clearly that the community is
divided on the issue, with perhaps some preference for the status quo
(alternative 3).
That means to me you should just leave it alone for
I'm in favor of 1/
3/, again, seems contradictory. The status quo is that it disappears.
Continuing it without a fixed end date is to subversively result in 2/
without a clear charter definition and Nomcom participation.
To be specific, I don't think 3/ should be on the table, at least not
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
All,
snip
If you have a strong preference for one (or two) of these, and have not
yet said so, please indicate your opinion (and your reasons) by mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] before Thursday.
my preferences are 2 or 3, so far i've not seen any other argument
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Harald == Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Harald 2/ establish a long-term area: decide that the SUB-IP
Harald area will be a long-term one, clearly define its charter, and ask the
Harald nomcom to select one or two
Michael Richardson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Harald == Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes:
Harald 2/ establish a long-term area: decide that the SUB-IP
Harald area will be a long-term one, clearly define its charter, and
ask the
Harald nomcom to select
I have an interesting set of questions for you Harold,
1) How effective would the IESG be with 2 more members, more effective,
or less
2) What would happen to any new IESG members in the SUB-IP area, if
the area is shut down ?
In otherwords, does the IESG think that a two new members would help
Bill Strahm wrote:
I have an interesting set of questions for you Harold,
1) How effective would the IESG be with 2 more members, more effective,
or less
2) What would happen to any new IESG members in the SUB-IP area, if
the area is shut down ?
I think this is a seductively
14 matches
Mail list logo
