[Icar] Assessing wg risk and criticality

Folks,

>  I may be missing something, but the problem I see reading this is that this
>  gives the IESG no assistance in deciding which documents it needs to
>  review.  There was another proposal which I read to say ~the IESG needs to
>  review documents for which there is disagreement about the results of other
>  reviews

Joel is certainly correct.  If we expect to have the IESG treat working groups 
differentially, then there needs to be community-wide understanding of the 
differences they should filter on.

I think there are a number of factors that ought to be considered:

1. Infrastructure

	If the work is going to hit the core of the Internet, it needs to have 
high-level and broad-based review.  Period.  (In spite of being up in Apps 
space, something like imposing a system-wide spam control mechanism hits the 
email infrastructure and probably should count in this category.)

2. Risk

	Some work is clearly pretty straightforward.  The work, itself, is well 
understood, and/or the core team working on it are known to do this sort of work 
really well.  When the work is not straightforward and/or the team is not known 
to be experienced with this IETF territory, then the IESG should give it more 
attention.

3. Urgency

	When there is rough consensus that useful work is needed Real Soon, then the 
IESG should endeavor to help that work get done quickly.

This does not mean that working groups which do not qualify under any of these 
concerns should be ignored, but it does provide a meaningful basis for 
prioritizing oversight.

It also has the advantage of requiring working groups and the IESG to assess the 
factors at the outset (and perhaps on a continuing basis?)

d/
--
Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://brandenburg.com>

_______________________________________________
Icar mailing list
Icar@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar