[Tinyos-alliance] Steering com input

[Ramesh Govindan]

David E. Culler said the following on 4/25/2006 11:19 AM:
> Ramesh
>   Would you like to draft a revision to that section of the tep.
> 

I will.

Regards.

> 
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Ramesh
http://cs.usc.edu/~ramesh/