Subject: [Autoconf] New plan for the Autoconf WG

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:58:33 +0200

I have tried to figure out what to do with the WG, because we weren't 
getting anywhere. The main problems we have are these:

- after three years even the principles of the architecture document 
were not agreed upon
- danger of attempting to fix the document based on feedback and still 
coming back to the above point
- the state of the other work items in the group is even worse
- chairs having to edit documents
- overall lack of energy and progress

All this is very frustrating, because I know Manet networks can be 
configured and successfully operated, and many people are interested in 
this technology. How can it be so hard to describe this? I don't want to 
assign blame to anyone about this bad situation, except for all of us 
together. We screwed up. But I do want to give the WG another chance, 
with a different setup and goals, and see if we can move forward. If 
not, the WG will be closed in a matter of months. Here's what we are 
going to do:

We will have a new team. Thomas Clausen and Ryuji Wakikawa will be 
chairs of the WG. A new person will become the editor of the main document.

We will have a different scope for the WG. The WG will focus solely on 
one deliverable. We have previously been attempting to describe THE 
architecture; from now on the idea is to write a document that explains 
a practical way of configuring Manet networks. All existing documents 
are essentially abandoned at this point. However, if the WG successfully 
completes the new document you will be able to take on additional work 
items.

The chairs are now searching for a small set of key experts to form a 
design team. The design team will write a first rough draft of the 
document, at which point we can open it up for wider discussion in the 
WG. The plan is that this can be done before San Francisco, where the WG 
is meeting.

Finally, the most important thing: the WG members need to donate their 
cycles for this effort as well. I think the above plan has a good chance 
of success -- please contact the chairs to volunteer as editors, design 
team members, document reviewers, and once we get something out, please 
engage in a timely discussion about the document on the list.

I would also like to thank everyone who has been involved so far, 
Shubhranshu in particular as he is leaving the chair team. While we have 
not succeeded, I know that you all have tried really hard...

Jari Arkko