|
Thomas Narten said: "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." I agree with this. The IESG should have the right to close a WG for a wide variety of reasons, including lack of progress. Whatever those reasons might be, they should be subject to a approval by the IESG as a whole, as well as confirmation by IETF consensus. Given this, I don't believe that this draft IESG statement really helps much. If the IESG feels unable to close WGs that need to be closed, then they should write a document addressing this issue and bring it to IETF last call. This doesn't necessarily require RFC 2026bis (though getting that done is also necessary, but a subject for another discussion). |
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf