"The work stops" (RE: IETF problem pinpointing)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On torsdag, november 07, 2002 08:44:30 +0200 john.loughney@nokia.com 
wrote:

> Accountability is a problem.  Let me state it like this.  Work groups
> work on on their charter items.  After months & years of work & consensus
> building, a document is finally sent to the IESG after WG last call.
> Suddenly, the work stops & the draft is sent back to the WG with cryptic
> comments from unknown IESG member.  There is little possibility to ask
> follow-up questions & there is no engagement by the IESG or IETF expert
> to help the WG.  This is the problem I hear from many normal IETF members.

query, sort of tangential:

you use the term "the work stops".
I've seen the same in other contexts - people claim that they stop working 
waiting for a BOF approval, a charter approval, a document approval or 
something else.

why do people think that they have to stop and stand at attention while the 
people charged with process management scratch their heads?

it sure doesn't help the evaluation process. in fact, for chartering 
purposes, an active community that is working on the issues in the open 
whether or not the IESG approves is one of the signs of health that the 
IESG should be looking for.

and in the comment resolution phase, I would think that it should be 
*normal* that the IESG member's cryptic comment is blasted across the WG 
list and roundly condemned (or supported - stranger things have happened!) 
by working group members who care deeply about one side or another of the 
issue where the IESG did not get the point.

instead, it feels like "the work stops" is an adequate description in all 
too many cases.

Ideas about why?

                     Harald