Re: [Pesci-discuss] Question: stability of IAB

Sam Hartman wrote:
> 
> This is a question submitted as an individual.

Attempting to answer as an individual, although one
with a number of IAB-years in hand.

> 
> One of the claims made in the current draft is that the IAB would
> remain relatively stable throughout process change.

I think one reason for that assumption is that the IAB isn't on the
critical path for the standards process, except in the appeals case.
It is of course involved in a consultative role in WG formation
and many other places, but it clearly isn't part of (for example)
the generic slowness problem.
> 
> Have people carefully considered the the effectiveness of the IAB in
> its architectural role?

In my experience every new intake of IAB members, including the 2005
intake, have exactly this as their top concern. We didn't talk about
it in PESCI, however. Maybe it's just a separable problem.

> Are people being quiet and not proposing
> change because things are working fine and the IAB is providing
> valuable architectural guidance just the way we need it?  Or are
> people being quiet because the IAB is not in the way?
> 
> I don't know what the answer is, but I think it important to consider
> carefully before deciding the IAB's role is stable.

I can't dispute your logic.

    Brian
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pesci-discuss mailing list
> Pesci-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss
> 

_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
Pesci-discuss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss