WG Quality Processes WG
mrw at windriver.com
Mon Jun 2 14:48:20 CEST 2003
At 12:23 PM 6/2/2003 -0400, Scott W Brim wrote:
>I'm just reluctant to make it a WG without an immutable time-to-live,
>less than a year. I want them to take on just one or two possible
>changes at a time. A change which is so major that it takes longer
>should be shepherded by the IESG (at this group's instigation?). It can
>be recreated (not just rechartered) every time. We have a precedent,
>the NomCom. I don't want the group to get stuck in its ways.
I understand and share your concerns about establishing
an ongoing process bureaucracy...
However, I'm not sure what, exactly, you are proposing as
an alternative. Everyone seems to believe that there is
a serious problem with the quality, timeliness and predictability
of WG output. But, how do we initiate an effort to improve in
We have the strange gap between the problem-statement group
and the efforts to make actual improvements in the IETF...
The problem-statement group isn't supposed to talk about
specific solutions. So, it is virtually impossible for us
to start efforts that are focused on accomplishing
particular solutions... Basically, all we can do is to
encourage the creation of groups (or efforts of any kind)
that _will_ (finally!) focus on solutions.
More information about the Problem-statement