At the 20k level, I pretty much agree with everything John has said.
This smells to me mostly of a way for the IESG to have an friendlier
way of shutting down a WG without huring people's feelings. Sorry, but
I think this missed the point. (I would be fine with individual cases
being closed due to OBE, but even then the reasons will be nuanced and
not covered by a broad statement.)
OBE is not well defined, and folk will just start arguing about
whether something really is OBE or not. I.e, we're just moving the
problem elsewhere. In some cases, the problem may be easier to solve
this way, but in others I doubt it.
John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes:
> (3) Finally, reprising many comments and specific suggestions
> over the years, I believe "under what circumstances should we
> shut this WG down?" is the wrong question. Instead, we should
> be devising criteria, interpreting benchmarks, and possibly
> using IESG turnover as triggers for review of WGs, reviews that
> start from the assumption that, beyond a certain point, a WG
> needs to justify its continued existence rather than requiring
> an AD to justify calling it off.
I think this is right. And the question isn't whether an effort is
OBE, but rather: is the effort a still a good use of IETF cycles. That
can be measured in many ways, including:
- is there (still) a real customer for this work at the end of the
day?
- is the effort making decent progress without excessive
intervention/help from the ADs and other non-WG parties?
- will the effort require serious cycles from the IESG (and others)
when the WG declares it's finished and it goes to IETF LC? (And
will that effort be worth the benefit?)
- is the effort sending misleading (or incorrect) signals to the
broader community about whether the IETF really is developing a
useful solution in a particular area?
That is, all-in-all, does it make sense to continue the WG, or should
the IETF cut its losses and move on?
A good number of the above questions have little to do with whether
something is overcome by events.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf