General comment on draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt

Pekka Savola pekkas at netcore.fi
Tue Mar 4 17:12:05 CET 2003


On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Mark Allman wrote:
> > indeed.  so how do we get wgs to produce production-quality output
> > and get production-quality ietf last call review?
> 
> The analogy I have made before and I like is that you treat
> documents as a university does a thesis.  The WG (student) produces
> it and the WG chair (advisor) ensures that it is baked and ready
> before passing it along to the IESG (committee).  If the committee
> does not sign it then both the WG and **more importantly the WG
> chair** failed to do his/her job.  WG chairs with high failure rates
> get replaced -- and in a somewhat objective fashion (not "we don't
> feel you're doing a good job", but "three quarters of the stuff you
> send is not ready, sorry, but the iesg doesn't have time for that
> kind of failure rate").

I wonder whether you have an entirely different system there, but here the 
job of the equivalent of the "committee" is just to rubber stamp the grade 
given at a lower layer -- 2 seconds.  In practise, "committee" never even 
comments much less reads the theses.

All the responsibility is at "advisor", but then again, most theses are
mostly irrelevant (except to the student itself) and incomparable to the
IETF process, IMHO.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings



More information about the Problem-statement mailing list