Longer or more meetings?

[Marshall Rose]

> But that is trivial. Instead, I'd like to draw your attention to the
> fact that everyone is arguing this case as if we had a zero-sum game.
> Faster results implies lower quality etc. I don't know about you others
> but I have a feeling that there is some room for improvement without
> necessarily making other aspects suffer. Before we start a foodfight
> on whose favorite property gets thrown out of the window, why don't
> we spend some time on true improvements?

uh, i don't think i'm arguing that it's zero-sum. for example, i think the
timeliness/competency curve changes slope after a couple of years (i.e., i
theorize that in many cases overall competency starts to drop after a WG has
been working on a given draft for more than two years).


> I'm not saying that there are no hard tradeoffs to make, but the
> current discussion appears as if the only possibility to cut down
> RFC production times is cutting back on quality. I don't believe
> this is the case.

i'm not arguing that, but i am arguing for accountability and basic
management controls and with that comes enforcement.  based on the data
provided by harald, it's certainly hard to argue that milestones carry
much weight.  and it's not as if the milestones are arbitrary... they're
negotiated by the IESG and the folks who want the WG...

/mtr