Working group participation issue
abierman at cisco.com
Sat Feb 22 21:30:26 CET 2003
At 12:01 AM 2/23/2003 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Juergen" == Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw at ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> writes:
>>>>>> Andy Bierman writes:
> >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hardie-wg-stuckees-00.txt
> Andy> I read this draft and I agree with it. It deserves
> Andy> consideration within the 'problem' WG as one way to increase
> Andy> accountability.
> Juergen> I also like the idea described in this draft.
>It's sort of unfortunate that both of these sentiments focus on the
>straw man solution rather than on the problem.
I don't really agree.
The phrase "increase accountability" might lead one to the conclusion
that I think there is a problem wrt/ WG accountability. Everyone involved
in a WG is a volunteer, but only the chair(s), author(s) and design
team members (if any) actually make any real commitment to get any work
done by a specific deadline. From a project management perspective,
it is unacceptable to have critical path tasks uncommitted. The WG
members who review drafts represent a critical resource. The quality
and timeliness of the WG output is directly affected by their input,
or lack of input.
>At times I wonder whether this effort will be doomed by our inability
>to avoid talking about solutions long enough to see if we have even
>identified the right problems.
>Please, even if you like the solution, even if you feel the need to
>discuss some aspects of a proposed solution, at least also take a step
>back and consider whether the problem is appropriate and actually
>comment on that too?
More information about the Problem-statement