> > 1) Too confused, no clear demand, etc. > > 2) Demand is clear, but work remains to determine what > > exactly the group should do > > 3) Demand and details are all clear.
On 28 Sep 2007 at 15:23 +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] allegedly wrote: > I guess what I'm interested in is the boundary between categories 1 > and 2. Evaluating the usefulness of this SG experiment would benefit > also from knowing what kinds proposals ended up in category 1. It would seem there is an iterative process. For example, demand may start high, and as the work scope clarifies, go down and then up again. What we need is an estimate from the IESG of whether an idea could turn into something based on the *potential* of both. For example, can the scope be clarified, and if the scope clarifies do they guess that demand will increase. I don't think you need quantifiable metrics. That feels like "physics envy" instead of human process. Scott _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
