WG Quality Processes WG

Margaret Wasserman mrw at windriver.com
Mon Jun 2 10:12:00 CEST 2003

I was hoping that someone else would say this, so that I
wouldn't have to argue with myself in public again, but
here goes...

At 10:05 PM 5/31/2003 -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>In particular, the process document currently indicates
>that we should start a WG to improve WG Quality Processes,
>as described below.
>So, do people think we need a WG like this?  If so, does
>it make sense to hold a BOF in Vienna?

I do think that we should hold a BOF in Vienna, but I _don't_
agree with my own WG description anymore...

IMO, the description delves too far into "solutions space".
It also makes the assumptions that all of the recommendations
for short term improvement to the document production process
will be process-oriented changes to how WGs function, and could
therefore be deployed on a per-WG basis.

Given some of the excellent suggestions made recent (which may
also be too much in "solutions space" for this WG), those
assumptions are invalid.

Instead, I think that we should hold a BOF, with the intention
of starting a WG to:

         Improve the quality, timeliness and predictability of
         the document production process.

And, I think that we should leave it to that WG to determine
what process makes sense for the introduction of each proposal
that it undertakes.

IMO, we should have a single WG for this function, so that the
group can consider various proposals, prioritize them, and
implement them in the way that is least likely to cause chaos
and mutual interference...  What do folks think of that?  The
alternative would be to consider/implement various improvements
to the document production process separately -- either through
grass-roots efforts or through separate WGs.

What do folks think?

If we do want a WG, I think it makes sense to push for a BOF
in Atlanta.  This would let us put together a leadership
team and vet a few proposals now, rather than waiting until
Minneapolis in November to get this effort off the ground.

Would folks like to use the "solutions" mailing list as a
rendezvous point to discuss the formation of this group?
I'll send a message over there to try to get discussion


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list