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.
John
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list