Keith Moore wrote: >>It seems to me that the fundamental problem is that most of the meeting has not read most of the drafts let alone the latest version under discussion. > > > I think that's a symptom; a more fundamental problem is that WGs are trying to do too many things at once. > > I've lost track of how many times I've seen a WG > > a) take valuable meeting time to have a presentation about a draft > that is only peripherally related to the WG's current task How many of those have been at the suggestion, or _insistance_, that an individual or other WG's work be 'checked' in that WG? > b) get a show of hands "how many people think this draft should be a WG work item?" The art of asking a survey question is key; there have been a number of recent docs accepted as standards-track simply because issues of "should this even be a WG issue", "is this the best doc to lead that issue", and "should this doc be informational, BCP, or standards-track" were all asked at once. > c) accept the draft as a WG work item without any discussion of > whether doing so will affect the WG's ability to get other work done, or > the WG's ability to give adequate attention to the work already accepted Or whether it is the WG or the IESG that has the real interest in the area of work. When a doc hasn't even been read by a handful of people - even after _multiple_ requests _at_ repeated WG meetings, it's amazing when the result is a call for decision on what to do. I've said it before: sometimes silence speaks for itself. Joe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf