Issues that need addressing

[Dean Willis]

RJ Atkinson wrote:

>
> On Monday, Nov 11, 2002, at 16:50 America/Montreal, Harald Tveit
> Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > third very clear topic....
> >
> > what should the IETF be doing?
> > ie what work to take on, what work to turn away, who decides that...
>
>
> My preference would be to alter the current process a bit to bias
> it *against* creating new WGs.  So I'd like to see a process where
> if the consensus at a BOF is "no WG needed" or "don't create WG",
> then the IESG would not be permitted to create such a WG.  This is
> a material difference from today, as IEprep WG's existence demonstrates.

You know, I argued against the formation of the XMPP WG for this very 
reason -- I didn't think we had enough bandwidth to support two fairly 
similar efforts concurrently. Dave and Marshall argued that either this 
  just didn't matter (there were people who wanted to do the work and we 
shouldn't block them), or perhaps that there was sufficient bandwidth if 
we just didn't subject XMPP to the same sort of scrutiny and oversight 
that other groups had endured. I think all parties expected following 
the BOF that there would be no working group. But there is one now, and 
of course we're all supporting its work. But I'm still not sure HOW the 
decision got made -- my guess is that direct appeals were made to 
individual IESG members. Interesting from a "transparency" perspective.

--
Dean