On 11/8/19 4:30 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 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.I
As far as I can tell, what makes people want to continue to participate
in a working group is (usually) that they're working on new documents.
I don't think it should be a hard-and-fast rule, but I think that any
group that tries to stay around long after its initial goals have been
completed, should be regarded with extra scrutiny.
But I wouldn't object to having WG charters include interoperability
testing as explicit milestones.
The goal of IETF should not be to produce as many documents as possible,
it should be to produce the documents that the Internet needs most and
that the IETF can best provide.
Perpetual WGs usually do not serve that goal, IMO. Again, there are
sometimes exceptions.
> 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 the bar is not high in the best ways. IMO the "bar" should be
about document quality and relevance, more than about the willingness to
work past the point of exhaustion.
Keith
