Keith Moore wrote: >>>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. Check again, please. I personally have been asked to take items to WGs that I've already presented them to repeatedly - even at the meeting adjacent to a Last Call. > 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). Sure - and that's where the process works. Since it's hard to know that ahead of time, why are you complaining about the check? >>>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". That's the amazing part - the question was something akin to "any objection to taking this as a WG item?" Joe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf