Re: [RAI] RAI processes for handling work effectively

Martin Thomson <> Sun, 28 July 2013 08:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0727221F9D33 for <>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 01:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kTBJif512QsC for <>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 01:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::236]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40FC421F9CE6 for <>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 01:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n11so909944wgh.33 for <>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 01:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=tzyxv/WdneWdsksJV1N8ig3H1OSB1xmyw8oLouiDFWw=; b=oLhpDhLh6wZ1GjqfaCKPfTWYQYeZjtqrTgTCAK3Nn+weuI7A1kbg8hc6IzyDWc5lV6 oOY6YakDa/e2A0SboIqZesiPknuCmdDJxAcZ9lgio6cKow83JpGkyePpU34UsISCC45s 8KXJTiwlZJvs+PtIPdK1jBGFAnEeVjPKwR2scYc/wDZy+h5jduitQjHK2Y+KV5LH3L80 IVKIOIXYLbDcBWOqy4NxnUIpuWAwGZYPJi3f1MAPpXE4dtP1W7yOfUXOivn+/a0xa5JA B+lcBMQ4WrRSUcy3kct84ArWnmYqPD6GSdABh+cyk8n4hbQQJD4vcTFyBsHFt/HvDro4 92ZA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id c20mr3714246wib.65.1375001334402; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 01:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 01:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 01:48:54 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Martin Thomson <>
To: Harald Alvestrand <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [RAI] RAI processes for handling work effectively
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Real-time Applications and Infrastructure \(RAI\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:48:56 -0000

On 27 July 2013 11:49, Harald Alvestrand <> wrote:
> All of this points to a need for careful review. What it does not point
> out is any need for a *slow*, *inconsistent* and *unpredictable* review
> process - which is what I feel the "standing working groups" are giving
> us now.

Isn't that just a natural by-product of using SDP, with all that
baggage Hadriel describes?

I don't think that you get any better review if you make new working
groups.  In fact, you get even slower, less consistent and possibly no
review at all.  One virtue of the long-standing working group is that
over time it accumulates a following of people who know stuff about
the work.  I saw this with the DHC WG, which was actually invaluable
when it came to bringing work there.

Again, not an indictment of your thesis about more focused working
groups, just an observation about this particular problem.