- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:34:31 -0800
- To: "Keith Moore" <moore@cs.utk.edu>, <hardie@equinix.com>
- Cc: "Keith Moore" <moore@cs.utk.edu>, "\"\"Yaron Goland \(Exchange\)\"\"" <yarong@exchange.microsoft.com>, "'Patrik Fältström'" <paf@swip.net>, "'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'" <Harald@Alvestrand.no>, "Scott Lawrence" <lawrence@agranat.com>, <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, "\"\"Josh Cohen \(Exchange\)\"\"" <joshco@exchange.microsoft.com>, "\"\"Peter Ford \(Exchange\)\"\"" <peterf@exchange.microsoft.com>
> 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.
No deliverables = no accountability = nothing happens.
It has to be chartered as a group with deliverables. Reviews of
documents are deliverables and so one possibility is to charter a group
to review drafts from related working groups and individuals; write up
concerns and comments and ensure that coordination happens and feedback
provided to the IESG.
Henrik
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 1999 17:35:19 UTC