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

James Kempf kempf@docomolabs-usa.com
Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:11:52 -0800


> > 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?
>

I don't see this as a conclusion. The process still must run, and the IESG still
gets to determine whether they like it or not, and they can stop something that
they think isn't appropriate from a quality standpoint.

But as I believe Marshall pointed out in his draft, by the time a draft gets to
the IESG for approval, it is pretty late in the process. The architectural,
quality, etc. problems are fairly ingrained.

The problem with the current process is that, formally, the IESG enters the
picture at the beginning (approving BOFs) and at the end (approving RFCs). In
the middle, there is no formal role, such as interim design reviews, though many
concientious ADs do keep tabs on their WGs and exercise informal guidance.

        jak

PS: This discussion seems to morph topic about every other email. Is it just me
or do other people have a feeling we are having a hard time coming to a list of
problems that we agree on? Perhaps that means there aren't any. :-)