--On Wednesday, August 6, 2025 09:20 -0700 Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Aug 6, 2025, at 12:42 AM, Stewart Bryant >> <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> A reality check. BFD WG was supposed to be done in two WG meetings. > > Good point. It's a lot easier to create a w.g. than have it > complete on time. Getting things done on a schedule is not an > IETF strength. > > I also think that "tiny" isn't a good description, the focus > should be getting something done in a few IETF meeting cycles, not > keeping it small (aka tiny). I think these two things are key and that we might combine them and, to some extent, borrow a bit from our past. Maybe, rather than having discussions about eliminating benchmarks, we should take them a bit more seriously. The criteria for approving many WGs should be more than just "several people spoke up for this in xDispatch". When there isn't high confidence that the work can be completed in a relative short period of time (or at least very clear progress made) we look at benchmarks and other important dates (such as AD turnover) and then do another semiformal review. I.e., "This WG seemed like a good idea three years ago, but it isn't making a lot of progress, nor producing documents. Do we still think it is a good idea?". That isn't about "tiny" although part of this thread inform it somewhat. It is more about recognizing and dealing with the fact that AD time is not unlimited, nor are meeting slots, community energy, etc. It may be time to focus a bit more on what the IETF can do, and do well, rather than on what someone wants to do. Maybe it is time to ask xDISPATCH groups what WGs they thing should be held to a tight schedule or wound down as part of recommending additional ones. Similarily, if there is a WG that is approved and starts operating under one AD but then handed off to another one when the original AD leaves the IESG, should we provide for that second, or even a third, AD to initiate a community review as to whether that WG is still a good use of community resources. A WG that has been around for a long time but that has produced good and important work in the past and continues to do so is not a problem. One that drags on and on without significant results or that is semi-permanently bogged down in issues that are not of significant importance for the Internet should perhaps be considered as to whether more space might be made for newer and more energetic efforts. Just a thought... john
