[Tinyos-alliance] Steering com input

[Philip Levis]

On Apr 24, 2006, at 1:21 PM, Ramesh Govindan wrote:

>
> Is there any reason to limit Steering Comm oversight only to  
> architectural/BCP TEPs? Initially, at least, I thought it might  
> make sense, as a form of peer review, to have *all* TEPs (not  
> drafts, but those formally submitted by a WG) be reviewed by the  
> SC. If this becomes onerous, we can revisit the decision then?

The idea was to say that the SC might ask to oversee some TEPs that  
it feels it should, but to not require every TEP to go through the  
SC. The current policy for TEPs is for the WG to ask for community  
feedback before moving them out of draft. My thought was that  
requiring SC review could add an additional layer of bureaucracy  
which could slow things down. Giving the SC the power to oversee when  
necessary would serve the goals of the Alliance without adding a  
layer when not needed. Members of the SC can of course participate in  
the community feedback. "Architectural steps" was intended to be a  
vague enough term that it could applied with a good deal of  
interpretation.

Would you feel better about it if the document explicitly stated that  
the SC determines what TEPs meet this requirement of review? I assume  
the SC will be aware of all TEPs, through a report from the TEP  
number generator (currently me).

I think that time and experience will show how strong an advisory  
role the SC should play; my intent in the text was to give it the  
flexibility to adjust as needs become clearer or evolve.

> Also, I don't know if we need to mention this here or not, but it  
> might also make sense to require that TEPs that specify changes to  
> the organizational structure must be ratified by the Board (in  
> addition to the SC).

This is a very good point.

Phil