On 2007-06-18 00:44, Bernard Aboba wrote:
...
The IETF seems to invest most of its effort at the beginning (the BOF process)
and at the end (IESG review). Neither investment seems to be very effective.
At the beginning, the BOF process has been called a "blood sport"; at the end,
a "death by a thousand cuts". I had not considered the leach analogy before,
but perhaps there is something there ;)
I've always believed that WG chartering is the single most important
action the IESG takes (with significant input from the IAB),
so to me the up-front effort is absolutely justified. If we charter
an effort that is going to take several years, we are committing
a lot of resources and maybe setting a major technology direction,
way beyond the IETF community itself. So that doesn't bother
me. If we can make the process more comprehensible and clear,
so much the better.
As for the back end issue, well, we can only change that if we
get more early and ongoing review. As long as documents continue
to emerge from WGs with significant issues of clarity, interoperability,
etc, what else is going to happen? I've seen IESG review from both
sides and the middle, and it's mainly about quality control.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf