Re: [mpowr] WG Formation
Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 17 February 2004 17:48 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21518 for <mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:48:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1At9Ki-0000w6-3J for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:48:32 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1HHmWIR003592 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:48:32 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1At9Kh-0000vr-Rg for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:48:31 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21505 for <mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:48:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1At9Kg-0003oo-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:48:30 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1At9K1-0003jT-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:47:50 -0500
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1At9JD-0003bX-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:46:59 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1At9JE-0000tx-Gu; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:47:00 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1At9Iq-0000tM-CN for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:46:36 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21224 for <mpowr@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:46:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1At9Io-0003Xu-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:46:34 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1At9Hp-0003NE-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:45:34 -0500
Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1At9Gp-000377-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:44:31 -0500
Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i1HHq6d20397; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:52:06 -0800
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:43:31 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Reply-To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <687385108.20040217094331@brandenburg.com>
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
CC: mpowr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpowr] WG Formation
In-Reply-To: <200402171711.i1HHBOf04010@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
References: Message from dhc@dcrocker.net of "Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:14:30 PST." <1872241726.20040216091430@brandenburg.com> <200402171711.i1HHBOf04010@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr>, <mailto:mpowr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results <mpowr.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:mpowr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpowr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr>, <mailto:mpowr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thomas, I had a more detailed response written, and then decided the most salient point of your note was what should be focused on: >> This moves the responsibility for timely productivity entirely to the >> nascent working group, rather than imposing any of that requirement on >> IETF management. TN> Certainly, there is a time for this. But I think there are too many TN> differences in each BOF situation to make hard-and-fast rules that TN> MUST be adhered to. Do we have a problem? Is the pattern of BOFs typically productive? Is the timely productivity of a working group distinguished by the up-front preparatory work that is done? Do working groups that start badly end well? Should we leave all of the details and procedure fuzzy, to be decided by the subjective assessment of individual ADs, as they are now? If we do not have a problem, then we certainly should not try to fix it. If we do have a problem, then what are you suggesting for fixing it? d/ -- Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com> Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com> Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253> _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr
- RE: [mpowr] WG Formation Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- Re: [mpowr] WG Formation Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: [mpowr] WG Formation Dave Crocker
- Re: [mpowr] WG Formation John C Klensin
- Re: [mpowr] WG Formation Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: [mpowr] WG Formation Dave Crocker
- [mpowr] bookkeeping Dave Crocker
- Re: [mpowr] WG Formation Thomas Narten
- Re: [mpowr] WG Formation Dave Crocker
- Re: [mpowr] WG Formation Dave Crocker
- Re: [mpowr] WG Formation Thomas Narten
- Re: [mpowr] WG Formation Dave Crocker
- Re: [mpowr] WG Formation John C Klensin