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

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

We need a contingency approach.

One size does not fit all!

Stewart

Sent from my iPad

> On 12 Oct 2017, at 23:54, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Floggings will continue until morale improves!
> 
> Killing a wg before it's done is also bad. I think we should trust the iesg to do that when it's time. 
> 
> On Oct 12, 2017 18:29, "George Michaelson" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I think we should enforce proscriptive end of life. WG should be cheap
> to spin up, short lived, and killed early. We want a coppice, not a
> redwood forest.
> 
> What we do now, is we breed WG and associated chairs as long lived
> redwood trees and they shade the forest floor killing off new growth.
> 
> If we couple that with forced WG chair selection by rote, we'd soon
> get to the nub of the matter.
> 
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi, Brian,
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Spencer,
> >>
> >> On 12/10/2017 02:21, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> >> > The IESG has spent considerable time discussing how we can improve our
> >> > ability to charter new work as soon as it’s ready and ensure proposals
> >> > have
> >> > the resources needed for success.
> >>
> >> I pretty much support the proposed approach as far as WG-forming BOFs
> >> are concerned; and I think we should also support the IESG's right to
> >> Just Say No too. I've been amazed for years by this apparent constant
> >> of nature: the number of IETF WGs is approximately 120. Why?
> >
> >
> > I assumed it was a natural law :-) ...
> >
> >>
> >> However:
> >> ...
> >> > The IESG has received some BOF requests that describe interesting
> >> > problems
> >> > at considerable length but do not clearly identify what the BOF
> >> > proponents
> >> > want the IETF to do. When that happens, we cannot approve a BOF intended
> >> > to
> >> > form a working group.
> >> >
> >> > In some cases, area directors might approve a non-WG-forming BOF to
> >> > tease
> >> > out the details of the BOF proposal, but often that isn’t the best way
> >> > forward.
> >>
> >> This bothers me, because it makes non-WG-forming BOFs sound like second
> >> class citizens, and I think that's wrong.
> >
> >
> > Then the text is giving the wrong impression. My apologies for that.
> >
> > I think they're important.
> >
> > Every area is different, but in TSV, I've approved about as many
> > non-WG-forming BOFs as WG-forming BOFs. They're not consolation prizes.
> >
> >>
> >> A non-WG-forming BOF has two
> >> possible outcomes (in general terms):
> >>
> >> 1. There's something here that seems to need doing. Start working towards
> >> a WG-forming BOF.
> >
> >
> > I'd broadly agree, with a couple of additions.
> >
> > It's worth reminding the community that BOFs aren't required to form a
> > working group, so I think this is "start working towards a new (or revised)
> > charter, and that might lead to a WG-forming BOF, or to a charter that is
> > ready to be approved without a BOF".
> >
> > I've been saying for a while that much of the new work proposals we see
> > that's interesting, spans working groups and even areas, so I think this is
> > "one or more new or revised charters".
> >
> >>
> >> 2. There's nothing coherent here. Forget about it for now, as far as
> >> the IETF is concerned. (There may be subsidiary outcomes here, like
> >> suggesting some IRTF activity, but as far as IETF resources go, it's
> >> over.)
> >
> >
> > I agree, and "for now" is important. Even in the BOF wiki, we say "not
> > approved for this IETF", rather than "rejected until the end of time". If
> > the outcome should change at some point in the future, we're listening.
> >
> >>
> >> Both of these are good outcomes from the IETF's viewpoint.
> >>
> > +1.
> >
> > Spencer
> 
>