The unfortunate reality of IETF processes, concerning working groups, is
that we tend to pay rather little attention our documented rules,
nevermind the documented philosophy of the organization. (John Klensin
has been diligent in repeatedly pointing out aspects of this.)
Charters do not conform to requirements. Milestones are not met. Area
directors take the position that they embody community expertise,
including about market need. IETF meetings are less inclusive, by virtue
of ignoring cost issues for those on a limited budget. And so on.
Indeed. For instance, some WG participants insist that the need for
backward compatibility with a non-standard protocol that has a trivial
installed base and has not been shown to work well, somehow trumps
well-established IETF requirements for protocol quality.
And somehow, all of these WG problems are IESG's fault. If WGs run
amok, it's IESG's fault for not keeping them in line. And yet if IESG
tries to ensure success of a WG by limiting its charter to avoid a
harmful result that a WG contingency is clamoring for, or if IESG tries
to rein in a WG that is getting out of hand, IESG will be seen as
exceeding its authority or abusing its power.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf