Standards Classification and Reality Problem Statement (was Re: Not a problem statement [ was Re: Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking)

[Brian E Carpenter]

James Kempf wrote:
> 
> > it's not obvious to me that all working group documents are standards
> > track; many are informational. If there's a "preordination", it is that a
> > PS from a working group is deemed to need less justification (2 week last
> > call vs a 4 week last call) than a PS from an individual submission.
> > However, the latter exist as well.
> >
> 
> Sorry, I meant "all WG IDs which are Standards track are deemed to be
> pre-ordained to become RFC". Informational track documents are, of course, not,
> though some have the perception they are. The issue here isn't the perception
> that Informational documents are Standards, but rather that a WG ID will
> inevitably become the standard, without substantial modification in any form of
> its basic design and contents.

If this is true (and I do mean *if*), then it appears that we have
effectively defanged the IESG; apart from the traditional retro-fitting 
of security, the important decisions were all taken long before the 
IESG saw the document. Now, is that a problem or just a feature?

    Brian