Experiment in Exploratory Group Formation within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
draft-aboba-sg-experiment-04

[Ballot comment]
After having reviewed the discussion around this. I am questioning the benefit of this experiment. That coupled to the risks with confusion and being stranded with things we don't want makes me wanna say no to this.

[Ballot comment]
At first I liked this but the more I thought about it, I see it causing confusion around it and I don't see much up side. I don't see what the experiment is or why it is needed. Specifically, I don't understand what this allows that we can't already do today and I don't know how we would decide at the end if a process change like this had made things better or worse. My understanding of the proposed SG was that an AD could charter one right now as a WG that needed to re-charter before working on any protocol documents. We have done things very similar to this in the past.  I do see problems where one AD says Yes to SG to not have to suffer the pain of saying No and in the process makes life much harder for their successors that needs to say no to a WG after a SG completes.

[Ballot discuss]
It appears the only way to dissolve a SG is either form a WG or timeout. Also, I am unclear what the point of a SG is ... are they guaranteed to get space/time on an IETF meeting agenda? Is an AD now going to be responsible to shepherd their progress?

[Ballot discuss]
What is the rush that makes this suitable to bring on the agenda 4 days prior to the IETF last call having expired? I think the main issue is what the IESG does if it been on the agenda and people having balloted and then something comes up in last call that makes us change our mind. Then we basically aren't allowed to change our minds as we already have balloted.

So from a process issue I will ballot discuss on this document. Expect it to be removed after the last call has ended.

Section 3.

"This experiment runs for a period of 18 months."

From when is this 18 month counted? approval, publication, first discussion of a SG, first approval of a SG?

[Ballot comment]
I think the maximum lifetimes for a study group (twelve months, or eighteen months in
exceptional circumstances) are probably too long, but that's okay.  It is an experiment,
after all ...

[Ballot comment]
Section 2., paragraph 5:
>    A Study Group charter MUST NOT include milestones
>    relating to development of a protocol specification.

  I'd like to suggest to add that "an SG MUST NOT produce any standards
  track documents", or maybe even "MUST only produce Informational
  documents".


Section 3., paragraph 3:
>    Review of Study Group documents will utilize the same tracking tools
>    and process as other IETF documents

  Please say something about PROTO shepherding here, i.e., whether or
  not the ADs responsible for a SG SGs may employ it. (I assume they may.)

[Ballot discuss]
Have we heard back from the secretariat that the instructions in this
draft are sufficiently clear that they can implement them? Also do
they believe the tools support what is required of them?