Re: Request for feedback - IESG thoughts about new work proposals

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

>> I'd like to see an effort to encourage IETF participants in general (not just a few handpicked people) to think more broadly.   I'd like to see more meeting time devoted to identifying common ground and opportunities for more broadly applicable work.   Such efforts should NOT be expected to propose working groups, at least not in the near term.   It's fine if they do, but the expectation should not be there.   And I don't care what such sessions are called, but I think BOFs were originally supposed to be able to serve such purposes. 
> 
> As Spencer mentioned, the challenging ideas tend to touch on multiple areas or be so broad as to be hard to break down to concrete work items.  How do we, the IESG, encourage proponents and others to do the map-and-gap wok and describe the framework that is more broadly applicable?  Since I started on the IESG, we've pushed back against unnecessary "process" or information documents such as too many/poor use-cases, architectures, frameworks, and requirements - but it feels like those are what is needed to adequately explain and map the space for more broadly applicable work.  What happens if a BoF isn't sufficient to help that work happen?
> Does it make sense to charter WGs just focused on the map-and-gap?   What about applicability?
> 
> Regards,
> Alia

Working groups are good at identifying and fixing bugs, holes, and edge cases, but bad at architecture and design.  So I think I'd recommend having a BOF to introduce the topic, and requesting that individuals or small groups of people submit proposals via Internet-draft.  Then plan to hold another BOF at a subsequent meeting, if there are any proposals, to discuss those proposals.  Repeat as necessary until there's a sense that there's a viable path forward (at which point it's time to charter a working group), or until no progress is being made. 

Keith