[Tinyos-alliance] Steering com input

[dculler]

The "one person outside the WG" is a nice concept.  It probably is not
overly burdensome.

-----Original Message-----
From: tinyos-alliance-bounces at millennium.berkeley.edu
[mailto:tinyos-alliance-bounces at millennium.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Ramesh
Govindan
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 2:00 PM
To: Philip Levis
Cc: tinyos-alliance at millennium.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Tinyos-alliance] Steering com input

> 
> Do you feel that the SC should review each TEP? On one hand, the 2.x WG

Not strongly enough yet to insist that we write it that way ;-). If the 
community has an informal process that seems to be working, let's keep it 
that way.

> 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.
> 

The IESG review is indeed required of all RFCs. The advantage is that 
there is at least one designated person (one who is not part of the WG) 
who is in charge of reviewing each RFC produced by a WG. We can always 
switch to this model later if we find ours not working.

> 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
> 
> 
> 

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

_______________________________________________
Tinyos-alliance mailing list
Tinyos-alliance at millennium.berkeley.edu
https://mail.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-allianc
e