[apps-discuss] How we decide (was: Re: Call for Adoption draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap)

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Saturday, May 12, 2012 09:25 -0400 Barry Leiba
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>...
> I think AppsAWG is a good way to get attention paid to work
> that the Apps community has thought about and decided is worth
> doing.  Thought and filtering are critical to that, and that's
> what's happening in this thread.

Barry,

I agree, with one qualification.  

In managing "normal" WGs, we usually try to keep the number of
individual "life" issues and documents limited in order to
improve workflow management and raise the likelihood that each
issue really gets adequately careful attention.  Sometimes we do
that by charter, sometimes by document and workflow management,
but I suggest that, in most cases, WGs who are successful in
developing consensus documents and being confident that
consensus do so.

Looking at this from a personal perspective, the number of
active documents in AppsAWG, whether in discussion for adoption,
adopted and presumably under development, or in WG or IETF Last
Call, is getting hard for me to stay on top of, especially when
my other IETF commitments (including to a few WGs I try to
follow) and limited time are swamping my ability to keep up,
even with documents for which I have direct responsibility.  I
hope I'm atypical and that others are doing much better, but I
do hope that the question of "Given existing commitments, do we
have the collective bandwidth among the active people in the
applications area to do this well?" is considered along with
whether the work is worthwhile, whether we have the expertise,
etc.

   john