Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking

[Marshall Rose]

> 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.)

well, since you're using the same arguments i am, i guess i have to agree.  (-:


> 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.

interesting. question: since the IESG membership changes every year, would that
have any impact on your position on this?

thanks,

/mtr