Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking

[Jari Arkko]

Margaret Wasserman wrote:

 > The visibility afforded by the ID Tracker will help us see what
 > is happening, but it won't necessarily speed things up and/or
 > make things more predictable.

Perhaps its the difference between scandinavian vs. US management
styles but I think that given enough information, tools, and
the right structure people will improve their performance
a lot and we don't necessarily need must-perform-of-we-replace-you
-kind of accountability. So let's give the IESG, the WGs, and
the general population better "tools" and let's also adopt a more
scalable management structure. And I see that you have that
in mind for the specific case of one IESG role below:

> The first place I think that we should look is at the side
> track for publication of informational/experimental RFCs.
> Why does the IESG need to review all of the weakly academic
> documents that the RFC editor wants to publish as Info, just
> to see if they overlap the IETF and/or meet our guidelines?
> Perhaps we could set-up a separate review group to handle
> this task which would only bump the real problems up into
> the IESG?

I agree. Or let the RFC editor do it as RFC 2026 indicates. Or
was it too much work?

Perhaps the perceived problem with Informational RFCs is that
they create a feeling of an IETF standard without actually
being one. I don't personally think this is an issue, but I
sense that some others do. If this is felt as a problem, maybe
we should just rename all Informational RFCs to IFCs (Informational
request For Comments) to make the difference clearer and the
process lighter. Then the IESG would not have to worry so much
about the IFCs...

Jari

P.S. I wonder why we are concentrating on the IESG performance
so much in this discussion. I personally have a good experience
about that, and the timeliness etc problems of the IETF go much
beyond the IETF. Just compare IESG review time vs. WG document
completion time.