Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking

[Erik Guttman]

 > I wrote:
>>Novel suggestion:  I think charter deadlines 
>>should *accomodate time required for IESG review!*  The IESG should
>>not charter more than they can actually review.  The IESG should
>>then meet these commitments.  What do we do if the IESG cannot
>>meet them?  We would have to cut the charter of the IESG.
> 
> interesting. i just don't know if we can measure the IESG's bandwidth. i sort of
> favor having the WG chairs apply consistent pressure to their ADs to get WG
> output reviewed in a timely fashion (and certainly the tracker will help with
> this), but i can see your point about putting the iesg in the milestones...

Factoring the IESG's review into the schedule is an important step
towards reality in IETF scheduling.  If the IESG review takes longer
than anticipated, there should be consequences.  For example - fewer
new WGs could get chartered.  (Does this sound brutal?  I believe in
France only the top Ecole Normale Superieure (sp?) students pass the
state exam to become secondary school teachers.  The line is drawn
where there are jobs available.  That's brutal.)

> the only question is what does it mean to "cut the charter of the IESG"?

Today the IESG determines which WGs get chartered, whether their
milestones are appropriate, whether documents get published and
under what category, when to dissolve WGs, etc.  This is a great
oversimplification of the process, but I think its basicly true.

If the IESG overextends the IETF by chartering more than it can
process, it may be the case that it has too many checks and not
enough balances.  Eventually some of the above responsibilities
would have to be taken out of the IESG's hands.

Erik