Re: [mpowr] WG Formation

--On Sunday, 15 February, 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?

I.e. --
	"the requirement won't add much, so we should do it"?

Wouldn't a better interpretation be
	"we are doing this already most of the time, and maybe
	flexibility is useful, so why tamper with it" or

	"what we are doing isn't working well enough, so why
	write it into a rule"

Now, from my perspective, the more interesting question to ask 
would have been:
	"And how much real information comes out of these BOFs?
	If the answer is often 'not much' and the IESG has the
	sense that the group will end up chartered as a WG
	sooner or later anyway, might it not be better to just
	set them up as a WG on a trial basis and with a short
	leash?"

> Except that most of the formative BOFs that I've been to in
> the last few years have had little or no prior activity.

FWIW, I'd say the ones I've been to have been about evenly 
divided between "little or not prior activity" and "enough prior 
activity, some of it possibly in poor directions" that efforts 
to recalibrate their directions would be "late surprises" even 
at the time a BOF is held.

      john

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