WG split: why and how?

Fabio,

  /* Please, don't confuse the subject lines--this does not help
   * discussion management. I changed it accordingly.
   */

  Seems that indeed some clarifications might be useful.
  I will get back to the list with a message on this today.
  Cheers.

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin/

Friday, May 9, 2003, 12:52:13 PM, Fabio Chiussi wrote:
> I am quite confused about the process that is being followed to deal 
> with the issue of splitting the WG, so I would be grateful if somebody 
> can clarify.

> First of all, it seems to me that a number of people have expressed some 
> very valid concerns on the wisdom/need of a L2/L3 WG split. As far as I 
> can tell (and I just spent a couple of hours re-reading the mailing list 
> archive, to make sure that I had not missed some key messages), these 
> concerns have not been addressed. Also, no strong rationale in support 
> of the split has been presented.

> Indeed, on the mailing list, I was not able to find any indication of 
> consensus being reached on the split and on the best way to split. It 
> appears, therefore, that no decision has been reached. At this point, we 
> could argue that it is even unclear what we are trying to fix and 
> whether the proposed solution has a chance of fixing it.

> All this indicates that the issue of splitting the WG and how to split 
> it (I am among those many people that just fail to see any strong reason 
> in support of an L2/L3 split) needs, at a minimum, further and more 
> formal discussion on the mailing list first, and then in person in Vienna.

> Instead of such a continuing debate, now we are already seeing charters 
> for the new WGs, and discussions on the details of those charters. Given 
> the implications of the decision to split (this is more than a WG 
> recharter, since it also changes the organization of existing and future 
> work), why is this handled this way, by de-facto implying decisions that 
> have not been reached through consensus?

> Fabio Chiussi