Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking

[Erik Guttman]

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> And put where?

This is the problem statement mailing list.  Rather than try to
solve the problem, let's just say:

Fact:  The IESG has the power to charter and accept documents and
        schedule.

Problems:
        Many working groups wait a long time to get their documents
        through the 'IESG review process.'

        The IESG's work is not factored into the WG's schedule, so
        when a WG's milestones go awry, it is difficult to tell
        whether a WG has gone astray or the IESG has.

Hypotheses:
        If there were schedules for reviews (i.e. built into WG charters)
        we could see whether the IESG was keeping up.

Now, I believe that if the IESG is not keeping up, we (the rank and
file) should expect them to throttle back the IETF, delegate, etc.
(which they can do, as they hold the levers.)  If the IESG cannot
get the IETF pace aligned with their own, the IESG should have fewer
levers.  I am not suggesting the IESG work harder or faster.

In reality things are messy.  When the IESG engages on a WG document,
there is a lot of intensive back and forth - often for weeks.  Is this
'in the IESG's court' or in the WG's?  We do not want to discourage
this engagement!  We should look at total time, with special attention
focussed on idle time in queues, etc.

Erik