Staying on Track (Re: Documenting pilots (RE: pausable explanation for the Document Series))

Margaret Wasserman mrw at
Sat Jun 7 11:28:48 CEST 2003

At 04:19 PM 6/7/2003 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>*Someone* needs to do quality control and measurement on experiments.
>But .... the IESG has other jobs. Our standard-and-often-recommended 
>practice when asked to do something is to figure out who to ask to do it.
>Who should be asked in this case, and who should do the asking?

The process document currently suggests forming a WG to evaluate
improvements to the WG process, develop metrics, run experiments,
etc...  IMO, the group should focus on making iterative
improvements to the quality, timeliness and predictability of
WG output that are expected to have near-term results.  I think
that there is a lot of low-hanging fruit regarding the process
used by WGs, including milestone management, reviews, etc.  So,
I think that we can make quite an improvement in the operation
of the IETF through process improvements in this area.

There has been some support for the creation of this WG, and for
holding a BOF in Vienna.  However, there have also been folks who
have argued that a WG is "too heavyweight" to do this, and
that we should be performing this function in a more adhoc manner.
In particular, John has suggested that the IESG run the process.

Although I accept that it is within the area of responsibility
of the IESG to run this function, we also have an acknowledged
overload problem for individual IESG members.  So, I think that
this is a perfect example of a responsibility that the IESG can,
and should, delegate to members of the community with expertise
in process improvement, metrics development, etc.

Because I think that this activity should be open to the
community, I favor a WG.

What do others think?

It would be nice to get some consensu on this, so I know what to
say in the document.


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list