I'm mostly trying to be helpful here, rather than trying to be an AD.
Ideally, those aren't mutually exclusive, but ...
On 08/21/2014 10:51 AM, Brian Trammell wrote:
hi, Aaron, all,
was just in the middle of trying to catch back up with this thread, thanks for
giving me a point to hang this off of... :)
Speaking, as Spencer said, for myself (thanks, Spencer!)...
On 21 Aug 2014, at 16:29, Aaron Falk <[email protected]> wrote:
I would propose adding the milestone for the third doc with some chair ground
rules:
1. no agenda time will be allocated to that topic until the first two docs are
mostly complete and stable (in the chair’s opinion)
I'd say "on track" as opposed to "mostly complete"... For the first document, especially,
there will probably be significant editing work (compiling subparts of the document from multiple
contributors into a coherent whole -- I've already volunteered to help out here). So this document may be
"ready" as far as its feed-in to the happy-transports stuff well before it's complete. The second
document, probably less so.
Keeping in mind that we're trying to nail down jelly here, if I were
co-chairing TAPS, and I'm not, I'd think the goal would be that we can't
make additional progress on work that's already milestoned - if the
working group can profitably work on meeting a milestone, that should
have priority, but if the working group has been through the open
issues, has a plan of action, and mostly needs to do homework before
moving forward ... well, face-to-face time is precious, and I wouldn't
want to send everybody I'm asking them to do home early because of a
line in the charter.
But, and I can't emphasize this enough, Aaron (who I've asked to serve
as co-chair) and his Co-chair Still To Be Named have to be comfortable
with what the charter says the working group will do. So, take my
opinion as a data point.
2. mailing list discussion of such topics during that period may be discouraged
if it appears it is slowing progress on the docs 1 and 2.
I'm personally less comfortable with this restriction, mainly because it feels
kind of punitive (of course, I'd say that the list should discuss anything it
wants, except how bad the cookies at the snack breaks are).
Isn't it sufficient simply to gate the *submission* of the third milestone to
the IESG on the *publication* of the first two?
This one is speaking as an AD - I would be surprised to see the third
document (which executes the plan the first two documents come up with)
passing the first two documents in IETF Last Call, but I'd encourage the
charter to be permissive. Keeping in mind what I said about WG co-chairs
and comfort, I could imagine that the hard restriction is that I don't
see Publication Requested for the third document before the first two
documents are *approved*, but I'm not seeing a reason to hold up the
Experimental work while the document goes through RFC Editor editing,
reference hold, or some other thing that gets in the way of an RFC
appearing to the world.
Does that make sense?
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Taps mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
