[Tinyos-alliance] Steering com input

[David E. Culler]

Ramesh
   Would you like to draft a revision to that section of the tep.


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.
>
> Thanks!
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>