Re: [mpowr] Why MPOWR?

Hi,

I agree with Joel's comments, so I don't repeat them here, but only 
want to spell out an issue explicitly..

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004, John C Klensin wrote:
> If we want this to stop, we need to make it _very_ clear to the 
> IESG, clear enough to overwhelm the noise, that we are tired of 
> it.  No more BOFs, and especially no second BOFs, unless it is 
> clear that useful information is likely to come out of them. 
> An accelerated chartering process with clear community support 
> for shutting down WGs that looked marginal at charter time, were 
> given a chance anyway, but aren't producing (there may be 
> elements of the O'Dell-Klensin and/or Huston-Rose proposals from 
> early in this reform process that might be useful here).

.. you seem to state "aren't producing" as a criterion for shutting 
down a WG.  I'm not sure if this is intended, but the problem seems to 
be more generic than that.

For example,

 a) the WG could get nothing done, because of the lack of 
interested/committed people, or do so only slowly;

 b) the WG might be getting something done, but the stuff produced 
would not seem to be a useful approach (e.g., architecturally wrong 
choice after the fast-track WG process began)

 c) the WG might be producing something, but the results will be 
irrelevant, as it lacks the support/commitment from major vendors, 
which would be a requirement for getting any useful work done (e.g., 
forces WG could be one example).

There are probably more issues to spell out, but "aren't producing" 
could be interpreted in a narrow fashion ("aren't producing 
anything"), or broader ("aren't producing good, useful output").

It is important to see the distinction, and the unavoidable pitfalls 
of the latter interpretation, as b) and c) are likely to be another 
(subjective) judgment call.

Thus it seems to make sense to "charter carefully because you've got
to live with the results", and "charter with sufficient number of
checkpoints to check whether the WG is producing the right stuff".  
However, this doesn't necessarily mean the chartering process needs to
be slow..

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

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