RE: [Nea] use of a design team to develop requirements

["Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi at intel.com>]

I agree with this as well, and I am sure other "design team" members
also agree. Infact, we have already had lots of discussions on the
mailing lists on the requirements and that's driving a lot of what we
are putting in the draft. Also I don't believe the intent of a small
design team was to exclude mailing lists discussions & participation.

I look towards the chairs for advice on the specifics of this
process...my personal thoughts would be sharing weekly design team
meeting summary, send out an early rev of the draft for feedback, etc.

Regards
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----
From: Khaja Ahmed [mailto:khaja at windows.microsoft.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 5:49 PM
To: Keith Moore; Stephen Hanna; SusanThompson
Cc: nea at ietf.org; Sam Hartman
Subject: RE: [Nea] use of a design team to develop requirements

I agree with Keith.  It is probably fine to have a 'design team' in the
sense of a designated set of people who have committed to contribute to
the development of requirements.  However I would prefer to see the
actual work and related discussion conducted on the list.

Khaja

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore at cs.utk.edu] 
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 2:57 PM
To: Stephen Hanna; Susan Thompson
Cc: Sam Hartman; nea at ietf.org
Subject: [Nea] use of a design team to develop requirements

Stephen & Susan,

I really have to question the use of a design team to develop 
requirements for the NEA WG.  A lot of the strength of the IETF process 
has traditionally been from its inclusiveness.  Experience suggests that

this is most beneficial in two areas - one is determining requirements 
and design considerations (the more people who have input into these, 
the more chances there are to spot important considerations that might 
otherwise have been overlooked) and another is in reviewing documents 
(the more reviewers, the greater the chance that a flaw in the document 
is discovered).

It's generally a good thing to have a small team to be selected as 
editors of a document, but IMHO, not so good to make that team 
responsible for actually determining requirements.  If that is really 
the intent, I think this will tend to impair the ability of the WG to 
produce a sound set of requirements, particularly when there are a 
number of dubious assumptions already included in the WG's charter.

Particularly given that the list has essentially been silent since the 
design team was announced, and also given that the design team was 
formed before much discussion had taken place here, it's hard to escape 
the impression that the parameters of the solution are being dictated 
rather than determined by WG consensus, and before the problem is even 
well understood.  I do not believe it is sufficient to have a design 
team develop requirements in isolation and then to have the WG ratify
them.

Keith


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

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

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