- From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 17:39:34 -0500
- To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <frystyk@microsoft.com>
- cc: "Keith Moore" <moore@cs.utk.edu>, hardie@equinix.com, "\"\"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. we've occasionally chartered 'review groups' in the past, for instance we did (a very short-lived) one a few years ago for email extensions. at that time, iirc, we had a lot of requests for email extensions appear in a short time. and those extensions were relatively small and self-contained and easy to think about. http architectural issues seem thornier and more difficult to sort out. chartering a group to consider http extension mechanisms seems wrong - seems like the first question is whether http should be extended (in scope) at all.
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 1999 17:50:29 UTC