Joe Touch wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
(John's long and interesting message severely truncated)
John C Klensin wrote:
... We may need
a way to have an "experimental" or "probationary" WG: to say to
a group "we don't have much confidence in this, but you are
welcome to try to run with it and prove us wrong... you get a
fixed amount of time, after which the assumption is that we are
going to shut you down unless you have produced enough useful
results to justify rechartering".
The option that is often considered today is to charter a WG only
to produce a framework or architecture document (or if we're feeling
unusually courageous, a requirements document). No specifications
can be produced without subsequent rechartering. The charter could
certainly include an explicit decision point for recharter vs. close,
but that's implicit anyway.
Also implicit is that the WG will ignore the edict to focus on the
framework and architecture docs, and begin solution work -within the WG-
as well.
If that's implicit, you are also implying that the WG Chair and AD aren't
managing the work adequately.
I'm not sure what the "probationary" label would give that this
doesn't already achieve.
The default that the WG closes down unless a case is made after the
framework and architecture docs are presented, rather than the current
apparent default that the WG will be able to recast its charter to fit
the work it has already done on solutions during the probationary phase.
Well, that isn't the default. Actually it's quite hard work to make
that transition and I don't see why you perceive it as the default.
But what you describe (creeping solutionism, and one person's solution
becoming another person's requirement) is a human tendency and I'm
truly doubtful whether a new label will fix it. I don't see any way
but relentless management to keep WGs within their charters.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf