Nico Williams <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 11:54:59AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Here's a thought experiment.
>>
>> Update the standards process such that the approval of Proposed Standard
>> RFCs, after an IETF last call including some specified cross-area review
>> requirements, is done by the WG consensus process with the consent of the AD .
>>
>> Why would that work? Because it now incents the WG chairs by making them,
>> in effect, where the buck stops. So the WG chairs and AD (typically
>> a committee of three) will feel the obligation to get everything
>> right. And it scales.
> So, no more IESG review? What would we need the IESG for anymore? It
> would be gone, I guess?
IESG review for Internet Standard, not PS.
> Sure, it will scale better. But quality will suffer.
More documents promoted to IS.
More time to recruit, manage and train WG chairs. I.e. MANAGING
>> [...]. So the WG chairs and AD (typically a committee of three) [...]
> Typically one of the ADs is uninvolved with a WG for which the other is
> responsible, so that would be a committee of two, not three.
Two chairs + 1 AD.
It would ideally also involve a few directorate reviewers.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
