MAJOR ISSUE: WG formation process

[Allison Mankin]

Melinda,

> 
> > Just getting the process clear and transparent
> > is something we have never done, and which "problem"
> > should do. 
> 
> Just to be clear, what we're trying to clarify in this
> instantiation of the working group is what the problems
> are.  That means that we aren't going to be taking on
> process improvement or, for that matter, process
> documentation.

Yes.

My wording was a little unclear - I'd change it to to read that
the problem-statement could identify areas in which the working group
formation process is not transparent enough, as your example does.

> 
> That said, as a WG chair and as an IETF participant I
> thought your description of the steps taken in working group
> formation were a terrific help.  I've never seen them
> described clearly before.  Working group formation is
> often a highly contentious, fraught process and I think it
> would be valuable if something like this could be taken and
> firmed up by the appropriate parties (IESG?), and then
> posted on the IETF website on the IESG page or the
> "Additional Information" page, etc.

I'll see about doing this.

> 
> In terms of process transparency, where I've really gotten
> hammered by WG-to-be participants wanting to know what's
> going on and why there hasn't been more progress is the
> period during which the charter is being iterated back and
> forth between the AD and the proposer, and then after the
> charter disappears into the bowels of the IESG, sometimes
> reappearing in a surprisingly different form.
> 

AD and proposer really can do some or all of it on the BOF mailing
lists, or the Area mailing lists.  There are just old habits to get
out of.  I think we'd benefit from strongly encouraging this openness,
and some of the questions being discussed about relevance and enthusiasm
might improve if more people were in on the charter development at such
a critical point.

Allison