How about limiting the term of working groups, instead? If a working
group stretches beyond about 2 years, there is a lot of value in
limiting its scope, shunting new work/extensions into a new working
group or groups, and trying to shut it down in the next 12-18 months.
I think this goes back to the distinction I made between the "classical"
"big-ticket" IETF working group that has a single major deliverable
and the ever-more-common "maintenance" working groups that have a steady
stream of protocol-related work. I don't see much point in re-starting
the DHCP working group every other year, to pick an example of one of
the longer-lived working groups.
I certainly agree that for the "big-ticket" working groups, an
annual-or-similar explicit review (visible to the community) would be
helpful. This is very common for subgroups in technical societies (ACM,
IEEE), for example.
- Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf