The problem is that the IESG, in reality, treats these deadlines as optional.
When there's no limit on the amount of work that can be imposed on IESG
from external sources, treating such deadlines as optional (or at least
relaxing them) is common sense.
If IESG charters too many working groups, any delays due to excessive
workload are arguably IESG's own fault. They should not have
chartered so many WGs and should have held those WGs to their
timetables. OTOH, when too many people send in half-baked individual
submissions, that's beyond IESG's control. It's silly to blame IESG for
delays caused by a workload that other people impose on them.
A policy that creates an expectation that an individual submission will
be published and receive the implicit endorsement of IETF (disclaimers
to the contrary notwithstanding), taking up resources from the RFC
Editor and/or IESG, is even sillier. Or at best anachronistic.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf