On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 3:26 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
While I haven't thought about it enough to know if I agree, the
model phb outlines would almost certainly require such a
procedural overhaul even though one aspect of it would actually
take us a step toward where we were 30-odd years ago. I would
hope that no one would try to institute it by IESG Statement.
I think it would be something adopted by one group in the first instance as a test case and left to other groups to adopt if it proved effective.
If the group in question were developing said tech, hard to see how IESG could stand against using the dog food.
Noting the (IMO useful) exchange between Joel and Keith about
design teams, I believe one of our assumptions about them is
that they are focused on a narrow range of topics and relatively
short-lived. If a design team needs to meet regularly for
months (or probably even weeks) and/overs a large fraction of
the topics within the scope of the WG charter, it is either:
A correct use of a design team in my view would be something like 'write the ASN.1 schema' or 'write the EBNF'.
The task itself is entirely determined by the requirements. There is an element of bikeshedding (especially with XML!) but all that really matters is that the result is correct,
(i) Indistinguishable from the WG itself except for fewer
requirements for documentation and transparency.
(ii) A sign that the WG was chartered prematurely and hence
should be shut down until people are ready to propose a new
charter and to get work done according to WG rules.
It seems to me that the first is a singularly bad idea and the
second, while appropriate, would be something for which the
community has no willingness to move on (or the IETF doesn't,
probably in part because they see no hope for community
support). As an exercise, think about how many WGs we have seen
shut down in the last decade because they were not actively
progressing toward the goals of their charters, emitting quality
documents into IETF Last Call, etc.
Or did you have something else in mind?
john
