Re: [PEPPERMINT] DRINKS PROPOSED Charter ..comments please.

["Richard Shockey" <[e-mail]>]

>  
>  There has been much talk here about "going off the reservation" and
>  what the IESG will or won't approve.
>  
>  I think it would be helpful if one (or both) of the ADs would please
>  chime in here as to why there is a need to bound the solution space
>  when there are some valid arguments being presented on this list as to
>  why this is not a good idea.

The AD's don't need to explain themselves. 

You don't seem to be listening here. All proposed WG charters must, within
reason, clearly bound the scope of the problem they want to solve and what
aspect of the problem they want to tackle first. At least in the beginning.
The scope of work in the initial charter will be bounded, period. End of
story. That is the IETF process. What don't you understand? This is what you
do to get a charter approved in the IESG.  

The IETF has way too many examples of WG that go "wandering off the
reservation" and try and tackle problems either tangential or impossible to
solve or create work that goes on endlessly.
 
What Daryl and I, as existing WG chairs, among others are reflecting is very
practical experience how this process works. Find a problem, narrowly define
the scope of the solution, fix the problem (incrementally, if possible),
declare victory, go home. Ask any IETF WG chair about this.


>  
>  While no one wants to boil the ocean it may be a waste of time if all
>  we want to do is catch a small tuna.

First you have to buy a hook than put the hook in the water .... we ran two
successful BOF's pretty everyone including the AD's "get it".  

>  
>  I think the discussion on this topic proves 2 things:
>  
>  1 the great interest in the topic
>  2 the different outlooks on the problem
>  
>  While I have nothing intrinsic against the proposed text one cannot
>  deny its limiting and in light of some of the resistance on the list -
>  maybe counterproductive at this point.

We have come this far. We are very close to a implementable first charter
and this discussion on whether there _should_ be limits on what the proposed
WG should or should not do is definitely becoming counterproductive. The
only useful discussion is what those limits actually are. 


>  

_______________________________________________
PEPPERMINT mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint