IETF problem pinpointing - the followup

[RJ Atkinson]

On Wednesday, Nov 6, 2002, at 14:32 America/Montreal, Paul Hoffman / 
IMC wrote:
> The problems here include:
> - charters are used as straightjackets that prevent changes
> - parts of charters are selectively ignored
> - charters are rarely updated even after a WG has shifted focus
> - some WGs allow lots of non-chartered talk on the list, others allow 
> none

Personal opinion/observation:
	WGs that have narrow and clear charters are generally more successful 
than
WGs that have broad or vague charters.  So I am generally in favour of 
having
narrow and clear charters.  Once a WG has completed most or all of its 
work
items, then it should be allowed to re-charter (following normal 
processes)
to add new work items that have community support, make sense 
technically,
and that don't interfere with another WG's area of responsibility.  
There
are some observed exceptions, such as CAT (broad charter, wildly 
successful)
in the Security Area.

2nd observation:
	An ADs job is made easier if the WGs in that area stay focused on
the specific set of items in their charter.  ADs are volunteers and are
stuckees for much gorp and are over-worked, so I generally support
things that make their job easier -- subject to the normal IETF openness
that we are all familiar with and desirous of.

	Again, the above are only my own personal observation over the past
~10 years or so.  It is pretty consistently the generic advice that I 
offer
to the IESG as well.  I started to offer that advice to the IESG before 
I had
any dots on my meeting badge, by the way.

Ran
rja@extremenetworks.com