Cutting through the accumulating sludge (was: Re: Doing the Right Things? and/or WG Quality Processes WG)

Margaret Wasserman mrw at
Mon Jun 2 16:30:34 CEST 2003

Hi John,

I mostly agree with what you've said here (and feel free to use me
as an example, good or bad, any time! :-))...

In particular:

At 03:15 PM 6/2/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>Now, there are things, most of them in the "long term" category, that this 
>approach won't address or fix.  I'll try putting some comments on one 
>category of those things into a separate note. But, if there is anything 
>of that nature that we really need to do, they will almost certainly 
>require spinning up a WG, careful consideration of charters and 
>leadership, etc.  I think the odds of something of that nature producing 
>results that are ready for us to even debate intelligently in Vienna are 
>pretty low, and will keep getting lower unless we can do something radical 
>about the current astronomical N/S ratio.   Maybe we can at least start 
>that effort in parallel with the above.  But let's not bog down practical 
>issues, fine-tuning, and fixes with the same process needed for long-term, 
>major, changes.

This was the point of separating the "near-term" and "longer-term"
items in the process document...

We should work on fixing the near-term items now, in some loosely
coordinated way, in parallel with fixing the longer-term problems
(i.e. reorganization and updates to the standards-track).

I'm just not sure how you think that we can start the near-term
effort that you've explained...  I had suggested a WG to vet the
various ideas for improvement and prioritize which ones to implement,
and you've suggested either having the IESG do it, or having the IESG
appoint a panel to do it.

A WG provides more opportunity for visibility and community
feedback, which is why I prefer a WG to having this done in a
closed group.  I know that not everyone can attend a WG, but
it a WG is certainly more open than the IESG or a closed
committee.  I agree, though, that a WG could be too high

So, either way is really okay with me, as long as we find a way
to start vetting the various ideas for near-term improvements and
implementing the most promising ones.


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list