Re: [Fwd: WG Action: Application Exchange WG (apex) to conclude]

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

> If we can change this policy, I think we should.   Ned and I were
> talking today about this, and he's convinced me that it contributes
> to a sense that the IESG takes too long to do anything.  Having a
> doc in REF hold keeps the WG on the books and can make it look like even
> reasonably fast-paced work was slow.

Note. It seems that RFC editor delays have been slowly going up over
the years, so now it does frequently take 3 months for an RFC to pop
out. This doesn't make it seem awfully long sometimes, especially for
WGs we desperately want to close.

But documents in a REF state are different. Personally, I'm not even a
fan of approving them. By definition, a normative reference means the
other doc is critical. But how can we approve the first document
without being sure that the part being referenced is stable and
consistent with the wording that is in the first document? While a few
weeks may be OK, a year is certainly not. We don't always worry about
this. I think there are advantages sometimes to letting a document sit
in the WG until the normative references are done, rather than turning
those delays into the generic "IESG delays" (as these things tend to
be perceived).

> I also think that at times keeping one around through this creates
> an attractive nuisance for folks who want to revisit issues the
> working group has passed or which are not in the group's charter.  A
> good chair can squelch that, but why waste a good chair's time on
> it?

How does this apply for documents that the IESG has already approved?

> I agree that the mailing list should stay open for questions and further
> discussion in most cases, but the content of the output of the working
> group should be a done deal when it goes to the RFC Editor.  When
> it has no more content to output to the RFC Editor thus seems like
> a fine time to me to shake their hands, pat them on the back, and
> close down the group.

I'd support closing WGs down early, at least for those where the AD
wants it done this way. But in many cases, their isn't that much
urgency either.

Thomas