Re: [Int-area] intarea charter

["Laganier, Julien" <julienl at qualcomm.com>]

Jari,

I support the first approach as the second one has IMHO no obvious benefits and a couple of drawbacks.

Thank you.

--julien

> -----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 8:18 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