Presence and IntComm WG

[Ben Teitelbaum <>]

Jeremy George 
<>
 writes:

> Roger,
>
>    This group was originally conceived on an IETF working group model
> which says that groups are formed for a purpose and, when that purpose
> is completed, have a party and go out of existence.  They are not
> intended to be indefinitely ongoing entities.

Evolution is fine---in the IETF too.  The IETF IPv6 working group, for
example, has been in existence for more than 10 years.

>
>    If the charter is in play, then it should also be considered that the
> group has fulfilled its purpose and simply go out of existence.  This
> isn't to say that the PIC group should go away, only that it should not
> be automatically re-chartered without the same level of justification
> that was required to form the group in the first place.
>

That's an interesting perspective.  I agree that Internet2 working
groups should periodically justify their existence and that the
threshold for continuing should be roughly equal to the activation
energy.  The VoIP WG, for example, should become a SIG at this point.

Hope you can join the discussion in an hour!

-- ben

-- 
Ben Teitelbaum   http://people.internet2.edu/~ben/