Subject: Re: WebRTC and emergency communications (Was: Re: IETF Meeting in South America)

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 20:17:04 +0200

> I don't think there is any general solution to the "early vs.
> complete" tradeoff [1],

IMHO, that general answer is; having good organisation or management
from all parts participants, discussion chairs and from directors.

> nor, as long as we keep trying to deal
> with things as collections of disconnected pieces rather than
> systems, to the issues created by WGs with significant overlaps
> in either scope or technology.

It is good to have systems that is why we need WGs with procedures,
and it is good to have collections-of-ideas (can be disconnected) that
is why we need diversed participants in each system/WG.

I am against the disconnection idea of pieces/work, we need both
connection and disconnection. The pieces SHOULD be always connected as
long it serves the same subject/issue/scope, but can disconnected when
we look into applications/projects.

>  What I think we can do is to be
> particularly vigilant to be sure that the two WGs are tracking
> and frequently reviewing each other's work.   At least RTCWEB
> and ECRIT are in the same area, which should make that
> coordination easier than it might be otherwise.

>From my new monitoring/experience of IETF, I don't think same area WGs
are coordinated in working related to their pieces. Management SHOULD
organise such coordination.

AB
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This message is not sent to private address, only sent to IETF.
My thoughts are writen in a message for the IETF not for other party,
if you want to comment on the thoughts, please comment on the message
idea/content not on the author or his/her thoughts/methods.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

>
>
> [1] Watch for a note about this that I've been trying to
> organize for about two weeks and hope to finish and post this
> weekend.
>