Subject: RE: "Stuckees?"

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:57:14 -0500

> Let's put that question aside,
> for the moment, though, and look at the broader question:  
> does the IETF need this role (whatever it is called) at this point?

I'm not sure.  I like the idea of people being obligated to pay
attention to draft revisions in a timely fashion, but I see a
couple of potential downsides:
- The obligation to pay attention could result in apparent interest
	in and hence a longer life for a draft that deserves to be
	put out of its misery in a prompt and humane fashion.
- Recalling the discussion about I-D authorship as a measure of
	job performance, we may see people whose PHB's set goals
	for them to become "core WG members".
Both of these can generate interest in a draft that is based on
something other than technical utility/merit/etc.  That's not
necessarily fatal to the idea, but it could increase the effort
required to discern the real level of interest in something
when that needs to be determined (cf. past discussions about
AD workload, as deciding whether to continue to work on something
can often entail AD involvement).

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:02:03 +0100

I think we need to reach some consensus in the "problem"
WG on this question (which is essentially how far we want to
formally delegate, and recognize, the responsibility for quality 
control of documents). If we want this to extend beyond WG chairs 
and editors, then it will need a name and job description.

   Brian

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:27:30 +0200

>        put out of its misery in a prompt and humane fashion.

I don't think the number of e-mails or comments as such should
be interpreted as "apparent interest". The stuckees could all
be saying that the draft has problems, or disagreeing with the
need for the feature described by it. Assuming the chairs
remember to ask for both problems and interest.

Jari