I think that's a symptom; a more fundamental problem is that WGs are
trying to do too many things at once.
I've lost track of how many times I've seen a WG
a) take valuable meeting time to have a presentation about a draft
that is only peripherally related to the WG's current task
How many of those have been at the suggestion, or _insistance_, that an
individual or other WG's work be 'checked' in that WG?
I've never seen an AD insist that a WG devote valuable face-to-face meeting
time to "checking" work that was peripheral to the WG's interest. OTOH,
I have seen WGs saddled with trying to make some other group's work into
something sane - it's a thankless job, but sometimes a necessary one.
(mDNS comes to mind most readily here).
c) accept the draft as a WG work item without any discussion of
whether doing so will affect the WG's ability to get other work done, or
the WG's ability to give adequate attention to the work already accepted
Or whether it is the WG or the IESG that has the real interest in the
area of work. When a doc hasn't even been read by a handful of people -
even after _multiple_ requests _at_ repeated WG meetings, it's amazing
when the result is a call for decision on what to do.
Why is that amazing? Yes, sometimes silence speaks for itself, but
there's nothing wrong with asking the question - so long as lack of
response isn't taken for "yes".
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf