Re: A personal take on WG's priorities..

["Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>]

FWIW, the SIP community has been reasonably effective in "dividing and 
conquoring" with at least SIP, SIPPING ("the kidney of the SIP 
community", to quote Dean Willis, and I don't know who said it first), 
XCON, SIMPLE, plus a few million ad hoc discussions.

My impression from the outside is that Jordi correctly points out the 
challenges:

- SIP and SIPPING share two out of three WG chairs, so coordination is 
tighter but the load on the chairs is heavier,

- Core specifications may be WGLCed in multiple WGs (SIP and SIPPING, 
for example), to make sure everyone is in the loop,

- Ideas that span WGs may bounce around a bit (conferencing framework, 
for example).

- if you can't spend the entire IETF in SIPpish meetings, you're just 
not trying.

I also note that at least some communities in the IETF can either work 
effectively on specifications or on a charter, but not both at once. 
Is v6ops one of these communities? If so, a charter tsunami would slow 
our work down before we accelerate.

Spencer, who is trying to find a nice way to ask David, "would you 
prefer to see multiple WGs, or multiple 'sub-WGs' within v6ops?"

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
To: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 3:55 AM
Subject: Re: A personal take on WG's priorities..


Hi Brian,

May be I'm wrong, but if the objective to outsource some of the work 
is to
"evacuate" it faster, I think is not the right way.

I mean, if they are within the charter, they are operational issues, 
pushing
it outside, will mean some of the people that is doing effort here, 
will
divide his time following up to WGs (at least), attending 2 meetings, 
etc.
At the end, some times this can be rather more time consuming that
proceeding here. I've this experience in projects, when you divide the 
work
in several WGs and then becomes fragmented, and the people, who is 
limited
in number and resources, availability, etc., tend to keep only with 
part of
the work, very concentrated and missing the overall picture.

Consequently, I will agree with this only in case we have extra 
effort,
which is not the case, but in general in IETF on the contrary. Less 
people
less effort with the time ..., unfortunately.

I will agree that if we have something that is clearly specific to an
existing WG, then it should be forwarded there. Similarly, if there is 
some
work that requires a very focused effort, then we should try to create 
a new
WG, probably.

Regards,
Jordi