[Tinyos-alliance] Steering com input

[Philip Levis]

On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 09:01 -0700, 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 
> 
> I see. In that case, I would be fine with keeping the current practice, 
> but we should perhaps add that to the text? We can later consider if the 
> SC should be the entity driving the community feedback gathering process.

Do you feel that the SC should review each TEP? On one hand, the 2.x WG
has started doing it this way, on the other, that by no means suggests
that it's the right way! You have a lot more experience with these sorts
of efforts (e.g., the IETF) than most members of the 2.x WG.

I think you make a good corollary point: that whatever policy the
Alliance WG decides on should be made a bit more explicit, with some of
the reasoning explained.

Phil