WG Chair Training (Re: Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking)

[Margaret Wasserman]

At 09:00 AM 12/9/2002 -0500, Edward Lewis wrote:
>This is a real problem.  Speaking from PROVREG's experience, I was told in 
>personal, private email (ie, not a form letter) how to update milestones - 
>from the secretariate.  Until then I wasn't aware that the milestones were 
>managed or  manageable.
[...]
>My point is - there's no guidance given on what constitutes a real 
>milestone.  I've failed to find on the website instructions to the chairs 
>on milestones.  (And for that matter, how to request a meeting slot and 
>other mechanistic intructions.  I don't mean to expand the thread, but the 
>lack of web site instructions is larger than just milestone maintenance.)

This is further supporting evidence that we need more/better training
for WG chairs.  I think that this should include expanded WG chairs training
sessions (the IETF lunch meetings) and better resources on the web site.

We could also benefit from better training/resources for attendees, and
a formal training effort for document editors.

There has been a thread on the WG chairs mailing list regarding this
subject, but we have not yet determined a plan of action in this area.

It is my opinion that better training of the WG chairs would also lead
to better communication regarding the process, etc. between WG chairs
and WG members.  Having a common understanding of the process across
the organization would actually lead to much more openness, visibility
and fairness, IMO.

BTW, I don't think that better training within the IETF needs to
present an additional load for current IESG members.  It should be
possible for the IESG to provide some guidance on what training is
required and delegate the work to others.

Training is not the type of function that would be well-handled by a WG.
IMO, the IESG should select people for specialized tasks, and delegate
work to those people, without starting a WG or holding a BOF.  One of
the problems with the current IESG is that they are doing too much
of the day-to-day work of running the IETF themselves, when there are
plenty of us who would be willing and able to help.

Margaret