Discipline of Internet Protocol Engineering

john.loughney at nokia.com john.loughney at nokia.com
Wed Jun 4 10:31:07 CEST 2003

Hi Dave & Keith,

> KM> The reason I say this is that several groups have demonstrated the inability
> KM> to define the problem they are working on,
> Unfortunately, i think this problem is deeper than we might wish to
> acknowledge.  I tend to be a charter fascist, on the theory that a
> crystal clear charter will leave no doubt about the problem being
> solved, and/or the benefit to be derived from the result and the
> deliverables to be produced.
> I view charters as real contracts, making clear what is included and
> obligated and what is excluded and prohibited.
> However with great regularity, remarkably fuzzy charters are getting
> approved. since chartering involves lots of experienced people beyond
> the working group, we can't simply assess the problem on the working
> group folk.
> I don't know how to improve this.  But, yes, we definitely 
> need to keep trying.

I would say that there is a breakdown in the chartering process.  I would
think, for example, inviting the proposed WG chairs to the conference call
when the charter is discussed could help, for example.  As a novice chair,
creating a charter is difficult. Better advice & engagement from the IAB/IESG
would be helpful.  For experienced WG chairs, there can be a tendancy that
many of the IAB/IESG seem to be more lenient with their proprosed charters 
because the experienced chair is a known quantity, so the thought is that
they know what they are doing.


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list