Sloppy Charters (was: Re: Discipline of Internet Protocol Engineering)

John C Klensin john-ietf at
Fri Jun 6 13:17:49 CEST 2003

--On Friday, 06 June, 2003 19:05 +0300 "john.loughney at" 
<john.loughney at> wrote:

>> I think those sorts of weak communications are a problem.
>> Without knowing which WG you head, or which AD is involved,
>> I'd  suggest that, if you have a continuing
>> poor-communication  problem, you need to have some serious
>> conversations with the AD  and, if necessary, perhaps with
>> the other AD in the area about a  switch, or with the IETF
>> Chair.  If those don't work, you need  to think about
>> conversations with Nomcoms or more dramatic  actions.
> I am not thinking of my AD in particular, but also the IESG in
> general.  As I've edited documents in several areas, I've
> noticed a general tendancy that the IESG has many balls to
> juggle, and  engaging chairs / editors in technical things
> tends to fall  (unless it is a discussion during IETF last
> call).

And, personally, I believe _that_ problem has no solution at all 
unless and until a majority of the IESG are ready to stand up 
and say "we are seriously overloaded, and we are ready to do 
something about it.  We understand that starts with accepting 
the fact that we really can't do everything and then moves on to 
being willing (and anxious) to look closely at any proposal that 
might plausibly reduce load."  I've heard things pretty close to 
that (and pretty consistently) from Harald.  But most of the ADs 
have appeared to me to have been largely silent or to accept the 
status quo.

And, again, I don't think the community gives nearly enough 
support to those who push back, which encourages and reinforces 
all sorts of bad behavior patterns.


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list