Re: Moving forward on IETF problems

[ned.freed at mrochek.com]

> Bruce Lilly wrote:

> (Interesting thoughts read and deleted)
> ...
> > One problem is that the IESG routinely sabotages development along

> That is, I think, an inappropriate choice of word.

> > the Standards Track by disbanding WGs as soon as a PS is produced,
> > leaving nobody to do the work necessary for advancement to Draft.

> Er, we don't terminate the people.

No, but WG termination often terminates people's interest in further work. And
even if the people continue to be interested, the folks they work for often
balk at continuing to support the work in the absence of a formal standards
activity.

> And we have always been advised
> by the community to avoid eternal WGs.

Some members of the community, myself included, have always had doubts about
wisdom of apply this principle blindly and unconditionally.

> > Charters should probably explicitly provide for WG activity leading
> > at least to Draft Standard (or to Historic if the necessary two
> > independent implementations fail to develop within a reasonable time).

> That assumes we care about moving stuff to DS. That wasn't at all
> obvious during the discussion of 2774 and is by no means obvious
> in the newtrk discussions.

The often-heard plaint that "nobody cares about moving to DS or S" has always
struck me as confusing cause with effect. Like it or not, the message we send
by doing things like close WGs the moment their docs come out at proposed, by
setting the bar for rechartering groups to deal with DS issues quite high, and
in many others ways says to people that "worrying about DS is a waste of time". 
Change the message we send and people will start to care; don't change it and
they won't. Pretty simple, really.

				Ned

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf