Dave, On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 05:22:34PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > > For example, as you note, the IESG approves working groups and working > > > group > > > charters. So the IESG does, in fact, have the ability to control the > > > later > > > demand placed on it. > > > > > Are you suggesting that we start disapproving new working groups > > since they cause work for the IESG ? > > That does sound pretty silly, doesn't it? Yes, it does. > But, then, it sounds pretty silly to have a pattern of filling up with working > groups when we cannot provide adequate support to them. (Note, for example, > that having too many working groups means we have too many parallel sessions > and cannot get the breadth and depth of participation we need.) The issues that you bring up are very real. However, I miss a proposal for a solution. As I said in my previous mail, I really don't have a mandate to tell the community that a working group is not going to happen because it causes work for me as an AD. In addition, making the charter better does not in any way imply that the working group will actually cause less work for the IESG. > If the IESG is really concerned about quality, then it needs to both faciliate > and apply pressure at the beginning of the working group and continue these > during the life of the working group. You seem to assume that the IESG doesn't do this already. What you describe above is exactly what the IESG does. Do you want us to apply more pressure to working groups that don't achieve milestones ? What kind of pressure do you want us to apply ? Quite frankly, I don't think that many working group chairs and the community would tolerate much more pressure than what we already apply. David Kessens --- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf