Charters, "normal process" versus ISOC, etc. (was: Re

[Keith Moore]

> >> Neither of you really need to be reminded of this, but the
> >> issue isn't  placing blame
> >
> > agreed.  but we seem to be spending most of our energy
> > concentrating on what's wrong with IESG and how to fix it, and
> > very little energy trying to understand what is wrong with
> > working groups and how to fix them.
> 
> I agree, and agree that this is a problem.   But many members of 
> the set of non-pixie-dust possible fixes for WG problems come 
> down to looking at how they are chartered, structured, and 
> managed.  To the extent to which we are looking at WG problems 
> that involve those sorts of solution spaces, the remedies, if 
> not the problems, lie again in the vicinity of the IESG...

Actually I disagree - I think they lie with our processes for operation of
working groups, much of which is beyond IESG control.  Even the part that is
theoretically under control of ADs may be effectively out of reach due to
community expectations and inertia.

> > working groups that produce technically sound results rarely
> > have problems with IESG.
> 
> If "problems" includes delays in getting those results approved 
> and published --delays that are longer than those WGs consider 
> appropriate-- then I think several people have made comments on 
> this list that disagree with you. 

But did those groups produce technically sound results, or for instance did
they fail to take into account the impact of the protocol on some other
concern not represented in the WG? And were the delays really unreasaonble
given the amount of review and comment that needs to take place, or did the
group just feel that way?  And were those actions sufficiently recent to be a
fair representation of the current IESG processes?

Maybe concrete examples would help. 

> But, with the understanding that this isn't what you said, there 
> is clearly a perception that WGs that produce results that they 
> consider technically sound (or at least "good enough") quite 
> often see delays in the IESG that they consider unreasonable.

Perceptions are often wrong.  IMHO we are in danger of biasing the process
so that it favors the reinforcement of perceptions over producing sound results.