Re: advice on role of a WG Chair

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Eliot Lear wrote:
> Since Juergen re-raised and eveyone including myself seems to be having
> a cow about process,  let's not go overboard in either direction.  For
> instance...
> 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> 
>>I am waiting for a proof that the stringent documentation and process
>>rules the IETF has put in place over the last few years actually help
>>producing better documents and more running code and ultimately widely
>>deployed technology.
>>  
> 
> Seems to me a lot of the new process has been focused as much on
> improving throughput as quality.  My understanding of the PROTO process
> was that it was an effort to protect against a DDOS by working group
> chairs who were either overzealous or hadn't bothered to read their own
> drafts, thus requiring numerous rounds.  Part of that process, for
> instance, requires a draft to pass idnits, something that it has to do
> in order for the RFC Editor to take over.  A reasonable question is
> whether we believe that process has helped.  Judging by the numbers it
> seems to have, but I can't claim I understand the causal issues.

These are hard things to measure in terms of cause and effect, because
it takes several years for changes such as PROTO to fully take effect,
but I think you are correct. Similarly I believe that the availability
to the community of the IESG's DISCUSS criteria will also have such an
effect -partly by making it hard for the IESG to have ill-defined
objections to a draft, and partly by making it clearer to WGs what sort
of thing the IESG gets worried about.

I'd like to underline that these things are procedural - we haven't
made substantial changes to our process rules for year.
(Hence the question asked in draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions-00.txt,
which will be asked again in plenary next week.)

     Brian