> The problem is that the IESG, in reality, treats these deadlines as optional. When there's no limit on the amount of work that can be imposed on IESG from external sources, treating such deadlines as optional (or at least relaxing them) is common sense. If IESG charters too many working groups, any delays due to excessive workload are arguably IESG's own fault. They should not have chartered so many WGs and should have held those WGs to their timetables. OTOH, when too many people send in half-baked individual submissions, that's beyond IESG's control. It's silly to blame IESG for delays caused by a workload that other people impose on them. A policy that creates an expectation that an individual submission will be published and receive the implicit endorsement of IETF (disclaimers to the contrary notwithstanding), taking up resources from the RFC Editor and/or IESG, is even sillier. Or at best anachronistic. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf