Re: [GGIE] Where from here?

["Holland, Jake" <[e-mail]>]

From: Leslie Daigle <[e-mail]>
But I don’t think you’ve addressed my implied point: it doesn’t much matter what we think, it matters what the IESG thinks if there is to be a WG. And, I’d appreciate others’ thoughts if there is the belief that an OPS working group for anything other than an IETF protocol is something that the IESG is likely to be supportive of.

<Jake>
mboned is an existing example of an ops group that’s not chartered to work on specific protocols, but on a broad suite of technology space. So there’s a precedent in favor of this, at least.
Of course I agree my opinion is not the important one in the final decision, I was only trying to provide my own answer to your question to the group. I would also prefer to see others’ opinions.
</Jake>

However, Ali had some good counterpoints that I haven’t seen addressed,
namely:

2. Certain folks in the ietf community are interested in media but then
many media related people are not even aware of the ietf or irtf. How
do we go about them?

What’s your definition of success? For the purposes of what we’ve been trying to do within the IETF (get existing players to have more awareness of each other and generally raise awareness of the work that exists already), I don’t think that’s true.

<Jake>
Sorry I was unclear on this, but this was a quote from Ali, not me.

I was saying I don’t fully understand Ali’s position, and on the bottom line, that I don’t agree with it right now. I’m not sure what his definition of success is in this context, but I assumed it meant something like “having a positive impact on how media operates on the internet”.
</Jake>

Again — not a complete follow up to your note, but I’m going to go back to listening for a bit.

<Jake>
Me too, I think I’ve said more than enough. I’ve expressed my opinion and I’m done except if I think I’ve been misunderstood.

Cheers, and thanks.
</Jake>