General comment on draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt

[Harrington, David]

Hi,
 
In no way did I say that I left it to the AD to do the substantive work of determining the right thing to work on.
 
I consider helping the WG set the strategy to be the most important aspect of my job, followed by recruiting resources, then ensuring wise deployment of those resources, and then the administrative tasks such as making sure the work is guided through the appropriate procedural steps.
 
And having the AD present and involved helps me to perform all those functions:
 
It is up to the WG to make sure the right thing gets done, and it is my responsibility to contribute to that discussion, to keep the discussion focused, and to make sure the WG considers that the "right thing" will also be dependent on what other WGs are doing. The AD is a useful resource to provide some input on what other WGs are doing, but I also supplement the AD input by discussing directions with the chairs of the other WGs and with contributors to other WGs. The AD helps me to identify which other WG efforts I should be aware of, and the AD can help identify useful contributors to that effort that might be willing to join in our effort as well to help provide insight into aspects of the other WGs' efforts. I can then make sure "my" WG considers that other work that is being done. So the AD helps me help the WG determine the right thing to do.
 
AD input can help me understand the relative importance of the work items being done by my WG, and where there may be overlap with other WGs, or where another WG's efforts might render our work obsolete, and to focus on how important our work might be to the big picture. I can use this information to sell people in my WG on the importance of completing the work undertaken by the WG. I also might be able to recruit people from other WGs with an interest in the related work my group is doing.
 
Openly discussing the big picture in the WB meetings, preferably with an AD present and contributing to the discussion about what is happening elsewhere, I can better present to the WG the priorities we should consider in allocating resources to the different work items (since all the work is voluntary, all I can do is sell people on volunteering to work on the important tasks). I can also use my understanding of the work going on elsewhere to recommend that a willing contributor who wants to work on items better addressed in other WGs consider offering their services to the other WG.  A potential contributor may decide that going to the other WG  would be a good thing for them, without waiting for my recommendation, and this helps me to keep the WG focused on the strategically important work.
 
By limiting the focus to the "right thing' I need to recruit fewer resources and can allocate them more effectively, and the adminstrative tasks for non-essential work is minimized.
 
So you're wrong to jump to the conclusion that I just push off the substantive work to the AD, and I think you are severely undervaluing the benefits of having the AD present.
 
my $.04
 
dbh
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Rescorla [mailto:ekr at rtfm.com]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 10:57 AM
To: Harrington, David
Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
Subject: Re: General comment on draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt



"Harrington, David" <dbh at enterasys.com> writes:
> I don't feel that having the AD present undermines my authority.
>
> My primary job as co-chair is to be a resource manager, making sure
> the tasks that need resources get resources. Knowing how to allocate
> resources depends on understanding the relative priorities of the
> tasks to be accomplished to achieve the strategic direction of the
> WG.
>
> An important part of my job is to try to make sure everybody
> understands the strategic direction we are trying to folow, and then
> make sure everyone agrees with the direction within an acceptable
> margin of rough consensus.
>
> The ADs bring an important perspective to the direction discussion -
> that the WG direction is within an acceptable margin of rough
> consensus with that of the other WGs in the area, and that of the
> IETF as a whole.
>
> I think having the ADs present is a good thing. It helps to ensure
> that the WG doesn't go off in a direction that will later be found
> to be unacceptable, and the WG will have wasted its scarce
> resources.
I think this goes to the point I was making earlier about what the
purpose of WG chair is supposed to be.

The responsibilities of the WG chair that you enumerate above are
essentially procedural responsibilities, namely making sure that
consensus is achieved, that people do the jobs they've committed
to. By contrast, you assign the substantive responsibilities (namely,
making sure that the right thing gets done) primarily to the AD.  I'm
not surprised, therefore, that you don't think having an AD present
undermines that authority.

-Ekr






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/attachments/20030303/8cbc7831/attachment.htm