Re: [Int-area] intarea charter

["Ahmad Muhanna" <amuhanna at nortel.com>]

Hi Jari,

I support option 2.
This way, the discussion forum will continue to be chaired by the ADs as
it is currently being done.

Thanks!

Regards,
Ahmad
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: int-area-bounces at ietf.org 
> [mailto:int-area-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 10:18 AM
> To: Internet Area
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] intarea charter
> 
> Thank you for all the comments that we received. They gave me 
> at least a lot of food for thought.
> 
> We will send out a new charter proposal soon, but first I 
> would like to get some input on direction we should take. 
> This relates to the dual nature of INTAREA, what work gets 
> accepted, and who should manage the group. As you all know, 
> the group has so far dealt with both area-ranging topics and 
> documents. On some other areas these two functions have been 
> separated into different meetings, one area meeting and 
> another group for progressing documents. On some areas there 
> is a fairly large number of documents to handle as well, for 
> us it has been a little bit less.
> 
> I believe there are two possible paths forward. The first is 
> to keep the group still as one group. The benefit of this 
> approach is that time can be spent where it is most urgently 
> needed, e.g., a large area-wide topic could take an entire 
> meeting slot. It would also be easy to deal with topics that 
> start out as area-wide discussions but result in a 
> recommendation in the form of an RFC (e.g., shared ISP 
> address). Since the group deals with documents along with 
> everything else, we'd get non-AD chairs who would also manage 
> the area-wide discussions. That would be with input from the 
> ADs of course, and Ralph and I really keen on delegating 
> anyway so this would be fine with us.
> 
> The second possibility is to create two groups, a discussion 
> forum and a document development group. The benefit of this 
> approach is that the two roles are clearly separated and 
> similar to what has been done on other areas. Two sets of 
> chairs would be needed, and at least the ones for the 
> document part would not be the ADs. A potential downside is 
> that if we create a new group in a place where we 
> traditionally have not had that much work, we might open an 
> avenue for publishing unnecessary documents, documents that 
> were rejected by existing working groups or BOFs, etc. 
> Scheduling the two groups might also be harder than it is 
> now, as the time split between the two would be fixed.
> 
> Do you have any thoughts on which model would be preferable?
> 
> Jari
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>