- From: <hardie@equinix.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:27:46 -0800 (PST)
- To: frystyk@microsoft.com
- Cc: hardie@equinix.com, moore@cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore), yarong@exchange.microsoft.com ("\"Yaron Goland \(Exchange\)\""), paf@swip.net ('Patrik Fältström'), Harald@Alvestrand.no ('Harald Tveit Alvestrand'), lawrence@agranat.com (Scott Lawrence), discuss@apps.ietf.org, joshco@exchange.microsoft.com ("\"Josh Cohen \(Exchange\)\""), peterf@exchange.microsoft.com ("\"Peter Ford \(Exchange\)\"")
Thanks for clearing that up. I agree that having one or more review groups working with the ADs would be a good idea. I think the review given by discuss@apps and wgchairs is a step toward that model, and it may give us base from which to produce such a group. regards, Ted Hardie > My proposal is not to have more app ADs - it is to have a body next to > the ADs that frees them from making architectural decisions and focus on > process. The diversity of the Apps area makes it hard to have an > end2end-interest equivalent and I think such a group has to be chartered > to review documents and to call out dependencies between groups. The > group has to contain app people with a broad knowledge of the app area > and with commitment to actually produce output. > > I used the word "directorate" as I believe such groups have existed in > the past in other areas and that this was the term used. > > Henrik >
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 1999 16:28:19 UTC