Re: Reforming the BOF Process (was Declining the ifare bof for Chicago)

[Henning Schulzrinne <hgs at cs.columbia.edu>]

In many cases, we do this in any event, just via a more heavy-weight  
process, namely by requiring working groups to go through a process  
of requirements, frameworks, architecture and other meta-documents.  
One can discuss how successful these have been compared to the effort  
expended, but moving this process earlier seems helpful, as it now  
follows a fairly drawn-out bar BOF -- scheduled meeting-that's-not- 
called-a-BOF -- real BOF -- IESG deliberation -- WG formation  
process. In other words, having a low-cost version that allows people  
to discuss the problem, without committing to a solution, would be  
helpful.

On Jun 15, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:

> I agree that the "5 criteria" are not necessarily applicable to the  
> IETF.  However, I think that providing the Study Group with  
> explicit WG formation criteria at its inception is useful, whatever  
> that criteria may be.   That way all parties understand what the  
> Study Group is expected to accomplish, and how its success will be  
> judged.
>
> With respect to measuring interest, it is true that the IETF is  
> more informal, but I do think that it would help to be more  
> explicit about what we mean by "interest".  For example, with  
> respect to Study Group formation, we are talking about interest in  
> the Study Group, on the part of potential participants in that  
> Study Group.  Determining interest in a potential WG would put off  
> until later and would be gauged based on Study Group participation  
> and review of Study Group documents, including the Charter.


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf