MIXER example (mailing list size/activity)

[James Kempf]

Most industry planning is on a yearly basis, but 6 month is probably a good
choice for IETF, since partipation can vary.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Moore" <moore at cs.utk.edu>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer_dawkins at yahoo.com>
Cc: "Keith Moore" <moore at cs.utk.edu>; "James Kempf" <kempf at docomolabs-usa.com>;
"Margaret Wasserman" <mrw at windriver.com>; "Harald Tveit Alvestrand"
<harald at alvestrand.no>; <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: MIXER example (mailing list size/activity)


>
> On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 11:35  PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>
> > Ummm, I suppose zero-based chartering (IESG decides what WGs to
> > KEEP after every meeting) is out of the question?
>
> this gets dangerously into solution-space, but I favor planning WG
> activity only about six months ahead, with both realistic and fairly
> concrete goals/milestones for that time period.  the WG would
> automatically go dormant at the end of that period if not rechartered.
> rechartering would require evaluation of the group's progress, where
> progress is not merely revising a document - e.g. the group would need
> to show that it had a better handle on the problem (in the early phase)
> or that it had narrowed the set of remaining issues (in later phases).
>   and it would require more IESG involvement in group management, but it
> might reduce IESG workload overall (due to fewer WGs and better quality
> output)
>
>