Dennis,
I sympathize with your trying to solve this complex problem. However, let us
formulate it correctly. The problem is that in some cases, as work is not
performed in time, schedules are not met, and the content of the final
output is diluted or far from the original scope of the project - which was
forgotten down the road.
I am not sure that adding the rule that you propose would solve the problem.
First, there are cases when there is real need for the work to continue more
than two years, and I can remember examples of work going on for more than
two years and the time spent being to the benefit of the community. Then, a
rule like the one you describe can be bent easily - as there is no real
persistent object to describe a work item (I-D_name_string?
paragraph_in_charter_name_string?).
What about the IESG asking the Area Directors to monitor in a stricter
manner the WGs schedules completion? Something like this was done in the
O&NM Area, and the results were not too bad.
Also, some would ask - the other way (and another thread) - what about
making these review queues, and RFC Editor queues shorter?
...running to the shelter...
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis Glatting [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thu November 11 1999 15:08
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Documents need to conclude
>
>
> Last night at the IESG's open mic at the Plenary I shared my concern
> on document life cycle. I am writing to clarify my comments and offer
> a suggestion I did not make at that time.
>
> Yesterday, in the sprit of the law enforcement question in front of
> us, a small group of people including myself held court in isolation
> and passed judgment on some WG drafts. We found some drafts guilty of
> a lack of entropy and some others a lack of momentum. Ladies and
> gentlemen you have heard comments like this one many times before:
> work items need a time limit. The IESG's response was the same you
> have heard many time before also: we're an organization of volunteers
> and it is unfair to make such demands.
>
> I agree with the IESG and that it is a difficult problem. However, we
> have two related issues before us. The first is we have to figure out
> how to scale the IETF. The second is documents that do not conclude in
> reasonable time tend to defocus WGs. More specifically, the longer a
> WG persists the more items that are put in front of the WG with the
> result of spreading limited energies.
>
> For every case I can put before you of documents that need closure I
> can put before you documents that have excelled from prolonged
> exposure. The IPsec documents are great examples of documents that
> have excelled. Therefore, I offer to you this rule to consider:
>
> Once something is committed to paper in a WG a timer
> starts. The document has 24 months (6 IETF sessions)
> to either be sent to the IESG for advancement or
> with WG consensus the Chair petitions the AD for a
> two session extension, which can be extended in the
> same manner again. Otherwise the document is
> withdrawn.
>
> I believe this rule to add something the IETF sorely needs but is
> unfair to impose: a little bit of project management. It's advantage
> is very low overhead.
>
> Comments?
>
>
>
