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

john.loughney at john.loughney at
Mon Jun 9 14:59:20 CEST 2003

Hi Margaret,

> 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.

I think that this would be a definate good use of face-to-face
time in Vienna.  I do not have enough foresight to know if
there will be support to create a working group around it,
but I think we should consider doing something along the lines
that you have proposed.

John L.

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list