Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking

John C Klensin john-ietf@jck.com
Wed, 11 Dec 2002 21:43:51 -0500


--On Wednesday, 11 December, 2002 21:17 -0500 Scott Bradner
<sob@harvard.edu> wrote:

> I'm generally in favor of this
> but when I've made teh argument in the iesg that 'this is only
> a PS' I do not generally get much support, maybe because of
> the fact that so few things move up teh process -
> 
> I do like teh multi-stage process & think it has served the
> IETF well over teh years buit may need a kick to make it work

As I said in the note to which you responded,

		Of course, the key to doing this would be deep
		commitment to it among IESG members and, to some extent,
		by the RFC Editor: any significant nit-picking or
		insistence on document polishing would kill the whole
		idea.

I believe that virtually all of the proposals that have been
discussed on this list will require the enthusiastic support of
most or all of the IESG (post-kick if needed).  Without such
support, I can think of ways that any of them could be subverted
or sabotaged.

An extended version of an observation from a private exchange
might also be relevant here: One of my concerns about the PACT
proposals to increase the role of WGs and areas relative to the
rest of the IESG and cross-review is that it could cost us some
of that review, which I've considered critical.  But, if a PS
document is really treated as a formal proposal, rather than as
a nearly-finished protocol and document, one might even think of
a PS document as being a WG or Area standard/document.  There
might be all of the usual Last Call opportunities for input, and
provision for escalation if the Last Call exposed really serious
problems.  But we could then try to treat Draft Standard as the
first level at which there was formal _IETF_ review and
approval.  

Think, e.g., about a disclaimer on a PS document that said "this
document was developed in, and approved by, the Foo IETF Working
Group but no determination has been made as to whether there is
IETF consensus on quality or completeness".   That might be
enough to frighten people into waiting for Draft before
large-scale deployment, as long as the Draft docs actually
appeared in reasonable time :-)

   john