Re: [mpowr] WG Formation

--On 15. februar 2004 21:45 -0800 Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> Harald,
>
> HTA> - Proposals, often externally initiated, for IETF activities. There,
> HTA> evidence of an active, open community/discussion is the first thing
> we ask  HTA> for.
>
> Excellent.  Then it is not a big step to make it a requirement, is it?
>
> Except that most of the formative BOFs that I've been to in the last few
> years have had little or no prior activity.

Dave, at the risk of beating an old, tired drum once again:
Can you name some of these BOFs, so that we can check whether all of us 
have the same perception of whether there was prior activity?

> And the requirement I am suggesting is for actual work getting done.
> That's different from simply having active discussion.  Active
> discussion is easy.  Make progress is not.

On the last two sentences, we fully agree :-)

But the point I was trying to make was a completely different one - that we 
make BOFs for many reasons. For some types of BOFs, it's appropriate to ask 
for prior activity on a mailing list. For others, it's not.
So we either have to invent new names for subgroups of what we currently 
call "BOFs", or we have to trust someone's judgment on when to require 
proof of prior activity.

Which one is the best use of resources?

                           Harald

_______________________________________________
mpowr mailing list
mpowr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr