On Jul 17, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Elwell, John wrote:
[JRE] I would like to support what Keith says, in particular this last
point (5). Over recent years I have been in sessions of some RAI
groups
that have finished early or had relatively large amounts of time for a
small number of topics, yet this never seems to be the case in SIP or
SIPPING, which seem to be time-constrained on a regular basis. Maybe
mailing list activity between meetings should be one of the criteria
on
which WGs session durations are determined.
Thanks, John.
This is, in large part, why I'd like to see SIP and SIPPING split up
into more modular working groups. They're ALWAYS time constrained, and
can never seem to focus on the right subset of their myriad tasks to
make people happy,
But your post points out one important issue: a large, complex working
group can pack a meeting agenda more completely with topics than can a
narrowly-focused WG.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
If our goal is to build the most efficiently packed agendae, it's a
good thing. If, however, our goal is to get issues thoroughly
discussed and build solid consensus, I suggest it is not.
I'm reminded of the old management saw: "Be careful what you measure,
because whatever is measured, improves according to the definition of
that measurement."
SIP and SIPPING have been very effective at efficiently packing agenda
time. We've even been pretty good at turning out pages of RFC.
Have we been effective at producing clear, simple, well-thought-out
specifications that are easy to implement? I fear we don't score as
well on that axis of measurement.
--
Dean
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
