Re: P followup...

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Marshall Rose wrote:

> charters and milestones exist for a lot of reasons. one reason is to
> focus the wg to produce something tractable within finite time.
> there is a limit as to how much latitude the iesg is willing to give
> a wg that overshoots its milestones.

Agreed.

I suspect that limit is decided on a case-by-case basis, and I do not
know whether our WG has exceeded that limit. Given the number of
drafts that we are now producing close to deadlines, the current P
momentum, the number of WGs seriously behind on their deadlines, and
the amount of resources IESG has recently spent on OPES WG, I would be
surprised if IESG is going to block a deadline change for 1 out of
10(?) WG drafts.

I have heard that deadline extension does not require IESG review or
approval. Is that true? Are we talking about potential problems [just]
with our AD?

> so, we either start cutting stuff out to meet that deadline (which
> is still slippage from the iesg perspective), or we declare victory
> and stop working...

I have no objections to polishing the current P draft and submitting
it now, before doing interface work, provided we are allowed to keep P
Core work in the charter in case we have to go back and change things
based on interface/implementation experience. Can we agree on that?
Will IESG have problems with that approach?

Thanks,

Alex.