Michael StJohns <msj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At any given F2F meeting, there would be 1 or 2 sessions where each
> tiny WG would get no more than 15 minutes of talk-talk time. Any tiny
> WG ending before the next F2F would get 30 minutes and that would feed
> into an area review of the documents.
Upon starting to read your proposal, my reaction was scheduling tension.
This provision makes it mostly workable; but my opinion is that "TinyWG"s
will live primarily on virtual interims. Those may be more design team meetings.
> This is sort of a half-formed thought. It's still *mostly* within the
> way the IETF does things from the document point of view, but narrows
> the focus of a given tiny WG from the broad to the specific. And lets
> us treat different topics - differently.
I'm for it: I also allow TinyWGs to be formed for the purpose of generating a
charter for a non-Tiny WG, and to produce a coherent problem statement I-D.
I.e. all of the side-meetings and virtual meetings that go into preparing a
successful BOF become TinyWG efforts instead.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
