- From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 16:53:51 -0500
- To: hardie@equinix.com
- cc: frystyk@microsoft.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. We've tried such groups in the past, with fairly poor results (at least in recent history). We used to have an apps area directorate, but it was difficult to get the directorate to review anything or to discuss architectural issues at length. The various apps.ietf.org lists were an attempt to replace the appointed directorate with self-appointed community members with interests in various subjects (web, messaging, etc.). We've had better results from these lists, but still have not found them very good at providing architectural direction. One problem is that if there are diverging opinions, as is usually the case, it's still up to the area directors to sort things out. So this takes more time for the ADs without reliving them of much burden. I'm starting to think that even architectural groups need to be working toward a tangible goal (say, a document of some sort) in order to get people focused on any particular problem. Keith
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 1999 17:04:41 UTC