Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process (was:Re:Doingthe
ekr at rtfm.com
Sun Jun 8 19:30:58 CEST 2003
Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> writes:
> ER> I ask again: what incentives do the WGs have to produce documents
> ER> that meet the IESG's definition of quality?
> I think you just highlighted a key problem:
> The IESG can and must provide a quality control mechanism. But it is
> the community that must define the necessary quality.
> And, yes, "the community" is a pretty darn fuzzy construct, which is why
> we end up with each AD (and each IAB member) defining their own criteria
> and applying them independently.
> Still, we need to find reasonable, community based criteria -- beyond
> just the criteria of the working group, so that it represents a broader
> view -- with the IESG enforcing it, rather than inventing it.
I don't have a problem with this. The point I'm trying to make (and
tried to make in SF) was that it seems to me that a rather small part
of the variation in how long a document takes to clear the IESG is the
quality of the document (whatever that means). Accordingly, I don't
think that WGs have a particularly strong incentive to meet any
[Eric Rescorla ekr at rtfm.com]
More information about the Problem-statement