Could these two comments of yours introduce some solutions?
At 10:08 16/05/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Bill, the thing that can create unbounded delay on RFC publication is a normative reference to work in progress. But apart from that, it's dangerous to generalize. For many years, the RFC Editor has only had complete discretion for non-IETF documents (for which there is now a 4 week timeout on the IESG review, see RFC 3932).
Does that mean that specialised SDO/TFs, meeting the IETF general values and interests, could be a better vehicle to publish RFCs for information which could be market tested; and then reinjected in the standard track if positively accepted? This would be a way to help innovation without risking derailing the IETF.
At 10:52 16/05/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
You've seen Danny's message with the results of asking the question in a straightforward way. - 20% of IESG nominees say they would not have volunteered. Unlike Dave, I am willing to believe them. fwiw I responded "Yes" to Danny's question, but not without careful thought and some hesitation.
Did the ietf@xxxxxxxx see it. Question is the motivations of the "No" and of hesitations. Could they be a good filter of the problem the IETF meets?
It is interesting that the IETF at large does not applies to itself the excellent analysis carried on WG mistakes in RFC 3774 (one is missing however: the _organisation_ of consensus by exhaustion). In particular, the IETF has no precise yearly Charter and no Road Map.
jfc
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf