Working group participation issue
Andy Bierman
abierman at cisco.com
Tue Feb 18 18:36:03 CET 2003
At 03:55 PM 2/18/2003 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote:
>Howdy,
> In December of last year, Fred Baker made a couple of comments on
>the working group chairs list about how management by objective principles
>might improve the operation of the IETF. In thinking about that, I realized one
>of the issues for me was that it was very difficult to apply those principles
>past the level of WG chair or document author. The AD,in other words, might
>be able to use them, but the working group chairs could not. The reason for
>that difficulty, I believe, is that we have no real way of identifying who has committed
>to the work a working group has taken on. We can easily identify chairs and document
>authors, but it gets tricky from there to know exactly who has committed to what
>part of the work.
> I've since written a draft on this issue, found here:
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hardie-wg-stuckees-00.txt
I read this draft and I agree with it. It deserves consideration
within the 'problem' WG as one way to increase accountability.
One issue I think it could help address is the 'waning interest'
problem. Sometimes a WG (or major subset) loses interest in
a work item or a solution for a work item along the way.
Sometimes only the authors are still interested by the time
the work is finished. The proposals in this draft will help
identify this situation.
Andy
> The introduction tries to capture the issues by saying:
>
> The IETF currently defines working groups by the mailing list
> noted in the charter. We can identify participants on the mailing
> list; those who express opinions, submit documents, or provide
> critiques. The process as defined is remarkably open and it has
> the tremendous benefit that anyone can make a comment and be
> heard. That openness, though, also makes it difficult to make
> anyone other than the working group chairs and current authors
> accountable for the working group making progress. Making a
> comment on a document does not, in essence, imply that you are
> taking responsibility for the work of the working group. That
> ambiguity, in turn, makes it very difficult to predict how much
> attention a work item will receive or to estimate when a work item
> will be completed.
>
>This draft has contrains a straw-being proposed solution, which is out of
>scope for this working group. I would appreciate the working group considering,
>however, whether the basic problem is or is not one that the IETF
>should tackle at this time.
> regards,
> Ted Hardie
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list