WG Quality Processes WG
john.loughney at nokia.com
john.loughney at nokia.com
Tue Jun 3 07:12:18 CEST 2003
Scott,
> 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.
So, putting it in different terms, if we go forward with such
a WG, are you suggesting it should have an extremely tight charter
that requires re-chartering to continue?
John
> On Sat, May 31, 2003 10:05:24PM -0400, Margaret Wasserman
> allegedly wrote:
> > A working group should be formed in the General Area of
> the IETF to
> > oversee improvements to the quality processes used in
> IETF WGs, and
> > to increase the effectiveness of IETF reviews at all
> levels. This
> > group should take an experimental, iterative approach to these
> > improvements:
> >
> > - Identify and prioritize a set of promising proposals for
> > improvement.
> > - Figure out what each proposal is trying to improve (in
> > measurable terms) and define a metric to measure
> performance
> > in that area.
> > - Determine the current level of performance against the
> > defined metric.
> > - Institute each change in a few representative WGs (on a
> > volunteer basis).
> > - Measure the results to determine if each change was
> > successful.
> > - Make successful changes available IETF-wide, by
> publishing
> > them in BCP RFCs.
> > - As necessary, train WG chairs and other
> participants on the
> > how to implement the successful improvements in
> their WGs.
> > - Repeat as necessary.
>
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list