> > 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? I've never seen an AD insist that a WG devote valuable face-to-face meeting time to "checking" work that was peripheral to the WG's interest. OTOH, I have seen WGs saddled with trying to make some other group's work into something sane - it's a thankless job, but sometimes a necessary one. (mDNS comes to mind most readily here). > > 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. Why is that amazing? Yes, sometimes silence speaks for itself, but there's nothing wrong with asking the question - so long as lack of response isn't taken for "yes". Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf