Selecting leadership, take 2

[Dave Crocker]

Fred,


Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 5:04:42 PM, you wrote:
Fred> and, by the way, the evidence shown suggests that the issue in the latter
Fred> is that documents that used to sit 3-4 months in a working group now sit 
Fred> two years; IESG and RFC Editor time with the documents is largely unchanged.

Fred> So let's change the IESG. That's bound to help... 

Given the earlier feelings that my referencing the draft-huston-ietf-pact
proposal was somehow trying to ram it down folks' throats, it is nonetheless
worth noting that the proposal pretty carefully calls for changes to working
groups, as well as IESG procedures. Frankly the proposed changes to the life
of a working group are more substantial.

So, yes, this discussion should attend well to the question of working group
performance, not just IESG performance.

We have the difficult problem that there is a pretty broad-based feeling
that the IESG needs to be more transparent and that the ability of an
individual AD to block a working group needs to be curtailed. So, that's
what draft-huston-ietf-pact proposes.

For example note that the 18 month rule puts pressure on working group
performance, whereas an alternative proposal to limit the number of working
groups does not.

d/
-- 
 Dave Crocker  <mailto:dhc@dcrocker.net>
 TribalWise <http://www.tribalwise.com>
 t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850