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

James Kempf kempf at docomolabs-usa.com
Tue Mar 4 08:41:38 CET 2003


Why not appoint a "program commitee", like a technical conference, when the WG
is formed, who agree to be responsible for review? These people get their names
on the WG web page along with the WG chairs and ADs, so they can point to
something when their boss asks them what they are doing with their time.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Rescorla" <ekr at rtfm.com>
To: "Randy Bush" <randy at psg.com>
Cc: "Margaret Wasserman" <mrw at windriver.com>; <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>;
"Keith Moore" <moore at cs.utk.edu>; <dbh at enterasys.com>
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: General comment on draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt


> Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> writes:
>
> > > It's important to separate the notion of "ultimate" authority
> > > from the notion of direct authority. Just because the IESG is
> > > ultimately responsible for getting the right decision made
> > > (in the buck stops here sense) doesn't mean that the IESG has
> > > to be directly involved in every individual decision.
> >
> > indeed.  so how do we get wgs to produce production-quality output
> > and get production-quality ietf last call review?
>
> No doubt this is considered a heretical statement in IETF, but I don't
> believe in production quality ietf last call review.  When you ask a
> large group to do something without picking out any particular
> individual, noone has any particular incentive to volunteer. Instead,
> what you get is that a few people who really care about any particular
> issue will put in some effort and the rest will do nothing--which is
> pretty much what we have.
>
> As for getting WGs to produce production quality output, I think
> that's rather more complicated. At the least, I think people have
> to have the impression that there is an incentive to actually
> do so. I'm not convinced that at the moment document quality
> is a particularly important factor in whether the IESG passes
> a document.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>
>



More information about the Problem-statement mailing list