Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> And again - this is all procedural, no change to IETF rules is
>> needed. I begin to realise that the IESG's workload is in its own
>> hands, and we (all of us who've served in the IESG over the last 20
>> years) have to share the blame for current practice.
> Something I realized long ago is that IETF community expectations are
> at least as influential as the rules, probably moreso.
> As long as the community expects that any working group that has
> support will be approved, that working groups can stay alive as long as
> they keep producing documents, and that any document that a working
I'd really like them to stay alive while not producing (new) documents.
So I feel that groups sometimes are eager to recharter because that is the
only way to stay alive. I'd like to change that.
> And every time someone points out that IESG is overloaded, most of the
> proposed "solutions" seem to have the intent, or at least effect, of
> further reducing document quality.
But, the bar is already very very high.
> Maybe it's just me, but I keep thinking that the best way for IETF to
> serve the Internet is to produce fewer documents of higher quality and
> greater relevance.
Fewer RFCs, I agree.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
