At 07:20 03-05-2013, Adrian Farrel wrote:
WG chairs might like to comment, but I suspect that one lunchtime training
session every four months does not constitute proactive management.
One lunch every four months does not look like proactive management. :-)
At 11:34 03-05-2013, Andy Bierman wrote:
WG Chairs meeting with I-D editors once every 4 months isn't so great either.
Yes.
If the total time has gone up 100 days, and the IESG time has gone down
100 days, then clearly the WG process is the main problem.
Yes.
I posted a message over a year ago (
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn/current/msg01653.html ). I
looked at the WG status page a few minutes ago. The WG did not
publish any document. I looked at the mailing list archive. There's
hasn't been a lot of activity.
The WG Chairs need more training on how to avoid the "slow tweak mode"
problem. The ADs need to manage their WG chairs so this doesn't happen.
The choice is whether to shut down the working group or not. It was
suggested (other thread) that WG Chairs have to find at least X
reviewers [1]. I doubt that anyone is going to pay these reviewers
[2]. This raises the question of whether the people who showed
interest in starting the work were a bunch of cheerleaders. :-)
The current mode of operation is:
(i) The IESG will fix that
(ii) The RFC Editor will fix that
(iii) More tools will fix that
There isn't any hurdle to try reviews by Senior IETF Reviewers
(SIRS). As an experiment the SIRS could commit to post public
reviews of every draft going through a Working Group Last Call (WGLC)
until the end of the year. I assume that a report of the experiment
will be provided after that so that the IETF community can assess for
itself whether the experiment was a success.
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.asterix.com/galerie/smailix/images/i11c.gif
2. http://www.asterix.com/galerie/smailix/images/i8c.gif
