Re: [apps-discuss] Apps Area WG (APPSAWG)

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Mark Nottingham wrote:

>Alexey,
>  
>
Mark,

>Has any consideration been giving to streaming different areas of general interest into separate WGs? E.g., Mail-related work has little to do with Web stuff (although there are common roots). 
>  
>
Of course. This is not supposed to replace forwarding documents to 
existing WGs or creation of new ones.

>Some of my discomfort with it would be removed if it were more of a "hey, let's work on THIS general problem area" than a kitchen-sink approach.
>
>Just a thought,
>
>
>On 17/09/2010, at 7:42 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>  
>
>>Greetings,
>>
>>Peter and I talked about this again and we would like to followup on the discussion in Maastricht about creating an Application Area working group for helping with important documents which don't fit in other existing working groups.
>>
>>Peter and I received some (private) positive feedback before the
>>Maastricht IETF. The discussion during the Apps Area meeting was a bit
>>controversial.
>>
>>We've heard people saying that this is solving a wrong problem. We've
>>heard comments like "you guys are overworked, but the new WG is not the fix for that". We've heard people voicing their concern about possible abuse of the WG. We've heard people saying that this is a good experiment to try and the community wouldn't know for sure if this is a good idea or not until we try.
>>
>>I probably didn't sound very convincing during the Apps Area meeting,
>>but I got impression that during one-on-one followup discussions with
>>people who objected (or raised concerns), I was able to change their
>>opinion. In particular I showed multiple examples of documents that would have benefited from being a product of such working group.
>>
>>So having heard all arguments and after thinking more about this, Peter and I are still thinking that forming such WG is a good idea. We are also thinking that based on raised concern it would be a good idea to put a specific restriction on how long this WG would exist, before it gets closed, or has to be rechartered.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Peter and Alexey, as Apps ADs.
>>
>>P.S. I am likely to add the proposed WG Charter (largely unchanged from what I've sent out before Maastricht, but I will repost) to IESG agenda for September 23rd. *If* IESG is happy with initial review, this will go out for external review. I am then going on holidays for 3 weeks. This will give people enough extra time to comment/nit pick on the Charter.
>>
>>If this WG is going to be created, I would personally prefer to create it before Beijing. I don't expect that it will actually need a meeting in Beijing.
>>    
>>