--On Saturday, February 18, 2017 3:59 PM -0800 S Moonesamy
<sm+ietf(_at_)elandsys(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
The only solution to that sort of time conflict is for the
IETF to become much less ambitious about how much work can be
done in parallel, possibly by constraining the number of WGs.
The latter has been proposed a few times, but has gone
nowhere, I think in part because even its advocates want
whatever work they want to do next to be treated
exceptionally.
Isn't the issue about the volume of WG discussions which an
Area Director has to manage instead of the number of WGs?
There are a number of dimensions of the problem. One could
debate their ranking by importance, but I'm not sure the
exercise would be productive. I would encourage you to find the
earlier I-Ds (there were at least two different models) and
discussions before starting over again.
I also note that a Last Call complaint (or appeal, or
suggestion of intent to appeal) on the grounds that a
document on which an IETF Last Call has been initiated
exceeds the scope of the relevant WG Charter has ever gone
anywhere. It isn't clear to me how cases like that should be
handled because the work has typically been completed and
there is no obvious basis for sending the document back to
the WG for technical corrections. The community should
probably fire ADs who let that sort of thing happen, but
(without guessing at what discussions occur within the
Nomcom) there is little evidence of community willingness to
do that either.
It is up to the Working Group Chair and Responsible Area
Director to assess whether the WG output falls within the WG
Charter.
Yes, as long as you remember that they are supposed to be
representing the will of the community and accountable to it.
Neither WG Chairs nor ADs have any other source of authority.
The difficulty with your statement above is that it can be read
to imply that there are no constraints one, or appeals from, the
decisions. That is not true or, more specifically, if one wants
a healthy IETF that produces credible work, it better not be.
best,
john