Re: [Int-area] intarea charter

[Scott Brim <scott.brim at gmail.com>]

Jari Arkko allegedly wrote on 10/12/2009 11:18 AM:
> 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 ADs could show up and lead those discussions without having to chair
the WG.

> 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.

Model #1 makes sense to me, for the positive and negative reasons you
cite for both.  It's much easier just to have one group.