Re: Submission of charter for POISON
John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net> Mon, 29 April 1996 11:48 UTC
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08538; 29 Apr 96 7:48 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08534; 29 Apr 96 7:48 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05836; 29 Apr 96 7:48 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08526; 29 Apr 96 7:48 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08522; 29 Apr 96 7:48 EDT
Received: from ns.jck.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05831; 29 Apr 96 7:48 EDT
Received: from tp.jck.com ("port 2940"@tp.jck.com) by a4.jck.com (PMDF V5.0-5 #16053) id <0DQMGSIC200OVC@a4.jck.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 07:48 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 07:47:21 -0400
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net>
Subject: Re: Submission of charter for POISON
X-Sender: klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net
To: "Erik Huizer (SURFnet ExpertiseCentrum bv)" <Erik.Huizer@sec.nl>
Cc: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>, IESG <iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>, poised@tis.com
Message-id: <2.2.16.19960429114721.3d9715de@mail1.reston.mci.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
At 12:04 96.04.29 +0200, Erik Huizer (SURFnet ExpertiseCentrum bv) wrote: >Here's the charter for the folow-up of poised95, and the formal >request toi the IESG to review this and establish the WG. > >I have named it POISON, for reasons stated in the charter. If the >name seems to excessively dangerous the alternative is: POISSON. In >... Erik, I'm going to stick my neck out and argue that it is not desirable to charter this as a WG at this time (although I like the name). Three reasons: (i) Running a continual POISED process takes up valuable meeting time (historically in larger quantities that we give other WGs) at IETF meetings and poses unresolvable conflicts. To be clear about the latter, I'd suggest that there are two types of people who participate in POISED and attend its sessions: -- those who would be better serving IETF by participating in conflicting technical WG sessions -- those who would be better serving IETF by staying home and watching television. And there are people whose contributions might be valuable who aren't actively participating because they are doing what IETF normally considers useful work, i.e., participating in WGs, writing or refining documents, etc. (ii) Running a standing procedures WG is an invitation to ISO-itis. I suggest that we should take the results of previous POISED efforts and run with them, chartering a new WG only if something is shown to be broken that takes a WG to solve. (iii) You have indicated that the WG will process several documents that we have been unable to get written in several cycles of the authoring bodies, written by those bodies. If a conventional would-be WG came along and said "we've been trying to get Joe Foo and his successors to write this for three years, and he hasn't found time, so now we are going to charter a WG which will make them write it", we'd send the proposal back and tell the proposer "document first". I think that logic applies here too and that the sequence of events should be: -- get draft documents written and posted as I-Ds. -- figure out, using our usual procedures, whether a WG is needed to review those documents or whether they can be approved on an extended last call. -- charter a WG iff there are serious document drafts on the table that need the type of review that only a WG with a charter and meetings can provide. --john
- Submission of charter for POISON Erik Huizer (SURFnet ExpertiseCentrum bv)
- Re: Submission of charter for POISON John C Klensin
- Re: Submission of charter for POISON Brian Carpenter CERN-CN
- Re: Submission of charter for POISON John C Klensin
- Re: Submission of charter for POISON Fred Baker
- Submission of charter for POISON Erik Huizer (SURFnet ExpertiseCentrum bv)
- Re: Submission of charter for POISON Keith Moore
- RE: Submission of charter for POISON Jim Browning
- Re: Submission of charter for POISON Erik Huizer (SURFnet ExpertiseCentrum bv)
- RE: Submission of charter for POISON Scott Bradner