Bruce Lilly wrote:
(Interesting thoughts read and deleted)
...
One problem is that the IESG routinely sabotages development along
That is, I think, an inappropriate choice of word.
the Standards Track by disbanding WGs as soon as a PS is produced,
leaving nobody to do the work necessary for advancement to Draft.
Er, we don't terminate the people. And we have always been advised
by the community to avoid eternal WGs.
Charters should probably explicitly provide for WG activity leading
at least to Draft Standard (or to Historic if the necessary two
independent implementations fail to develop within a reasonable time).
That assumes we care about moving stuff to DS. That wasn't at all
obvious during the discussion of 2774 and is by no means obvious
in the newtrk discussions.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf