Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking

[Margaret Wasserman]

>e.g., v6 transition, zeroconf, and jabber are a load and will be
>more so.  do you, margaret, and marshall wanna talk about which we
>should shed?  :-)

I am not really a member of the camp that says we should limit
the number of WGs or shed work...  I'd like to see us organize
ourselves a bit better, so that we could handle our current work
less painfully and continue to grow.

>one of the lessons i have learned on the internet is distributing
>the load is a major key to scaling and dealing with load.  i
>suspect one possible approach to the serious problem of getting all
>this work done is to push the problems of rigor and quality back to
>the wgs so they produce product that requires less time to process.

I think that we should try to do this.  The message has been clear
from Thomas, Allison, you and others, and I have been trying to
figure out ways to get the WGs I (co-)chair to produce higher quality
output.  I have some ideas about how to do this, which you saw
presented in Sunnyvale.  It'll take a little while, though, to discover
whether or not my efforts are successful.

I would also appreciate any input that you or other IESG members have
for practical methods to improve the quality of WG work output.

>and, as i am wondering about increasing the load on wgs, you may
>get a hint as to why i keep asking marshall about his obsession
>with milestones.  there may be a tradeoff here, and i am actually
>trying to understand the space.

I definitely think that there are trade-offs between timeliness,
quality and the appropriate level of completeness...  I have been
quite concerned by what I consider to be an over-emphasis on
timeliness in these discussions.

Margaret