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