[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
--On 22. juni 2003 19:14 -0400 Scott W Brim <email@example.com> wrote:
We've been worried about the number of working groups since the concept
of working groups was created (somewhere around 1989).
is it that new? :-)
I think these are two good questions.
One question is
how big we "need" to be (to cover the needs of our constituents), but
the other is how big can we get without losing effectiveness.
To my mind, when we redesign the way we do WG management, we should make
sure the last number is a comfortable number larger than the first - that
is, when we have all the WGs we really need now, we should still feel
comfortable with adding another 5 or 10 because some new areas have
attracted interest and are within the IETF's competence to "do right".
Of course, we need mechanisms that prevent the IETF from growing until
management is a problem again - but I've never been comfortable with the
idea that our management structure should govern what technology we take
on; that's just not the Right Thing.
(btw, I think the "need to be", given our current technology reach, is
(guesstimate) somewhere on the order of 100.... but the way we manage WGs
currently, that means we need to keep about 200 "active", because half our
WGs are in some variant of FIN_WAIT, getting the last few pieces done, or
just waiting for someone to put them out of their misery - and that might
be a more proper problem for COACH to address....)