Re: [tcmtf] Improved version of the TCMTF Charter proposal (v3)

[Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>]

On 1/23/2013 6:58 AM, Jose Saldana wrote:
> Hello all.
> 
>  
> 
> After reading the messages in the mailing list, I think we have arrived
> to a solution. Each of the documents has been discussed in a separate
> thread, so I have tried to take everything into account. Documents (A)
> and (B) would be in the Charter. Documents (C) and (D) would only be
> announced as possibilities for re-chartering, and Document (E) can wait
> a little.
> 
> ...


In my opinion, this is decent, though here are two criticisms:

(1) In my opinion, it focuses too much on documents to be produced,
    rather than fully and clearly motivating why the working group
    is needed (i.e. to solve a problem, not to develop documents),
    how it's scope is delimited (i.e. what it *won't* touch isn't
    clear to me, along with what other areas/WGs need to be
    coordinated with), and what the end-goal is.

(2) There's a focus on defining technical solutions prior to the
    mention of fleshing out and totally defining the use cases /
    requirements.  In my opinion, that appears backwards :).

That said, I'm generally supportive of this work.  In my opinion,
as an AD, we would normally feel better having a BoF before forming
a WG, for two reasons (1) to get other areas (e.g. RAI) to be aware
of what's being proposed, and (2) to vet that there really is a
community of stakeholders that are engaged to do the work.  In this
case, I think the 2nd point is evident from the mailing list, and
I don't have a concern about it at all.  I think the 1st point can
be addressed through the responsible AD coordinating with the IESG
and the directorates or area mailing lists that related areas have.
Since I'm going away as an AD though, what really matters at the
moment is what Martin thinks :).

-- 
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems