Experiment in Exploratory Group Formation within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
draft-aboba-sg-experiment-04
Yes
(Chris Newman)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Jari Arkko)
(Sam Hartman)
No Objection
(David Ward)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Tim Polk)
Abstain
(Russ Housley)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Chris Newman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
(was Discuss, Yes, Discuss, Yes)
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
David Ward Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2007-10-03)
Unknown
Section 2., paragraph 5: > A Study Group charter MUST NOT include milestones > relating to development of a protocol specification. I'd like to suggest to add that "an SG MUST NOT produce any standards track documents", or maybe even "MUST only produce Informational documents". Section 3., paragraph 3: > Review of Study Group documents will utilize the same tracking tools > and process as other IETF documents Please say something about PROTO shepherding here, i.e., whether or not the ADs responsible for a SG SGs may employ it. (I assume they may.)
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2007-10-03)
Unknown
I think the maximum lifetimes for a study group (twelve months, or eighteen months in exceptional circumstances) are probably too long, but that's okay. It is an experiment, after all ...
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain
(2007-10-11)
Unknown
At first I liked this but the more I thought about it, I see it causing confusion around it and I don't see much up side. I don't see what the experiment is or why it is needed. Specifically, I don't understand what this allows that we can't already do today and I don't know how we would decide at the end if a process change like this had made things better or worse. My understanding of the proposed SG was that an AD could charter one right now as a WG that needed to re-charter before working on any protocol documents. We have done things very similar to this in the past. I do see problems where one AD says Yes to SG to not have to suffer the pain of saying No and in the process makes life much harder for their successors that needs to say no to a WG after a SG completes.
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
Abstain
Abstain
(2007-10-17)
Unknown
After having reviewed the discussion around this. I am questioning the benefit of this experiment. That coupled to the risks with confusion and being stranded with things we don't want makes me wanna say no to this.
Russ Housley Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain
()
Unknown