General comment on draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On mandag, mars 03, 2003 08:59:16 -0500 Margaret Wasserman 
<mrw at windriver.com> wrote:

>
> Replying to myself, again...  Hey, it's been a long
> night. :-)
>
> One thing that makes me question how much real power
> and authority has been delegated to WG chairs is the
> fact that the "responsible AD" is always expected to
> be present when the WG meets.
>
> When I've run groups in companies, I've often held
> meetings, even run major projects, without any
> direct supervision or intervention from my manager.
> But, that doesn't seem to be the case in the
> IETF.  Is there a reason for that?

It's partly a reaction thing - at one time (around 1995??), there were some 
WGs that routinely met at the IETF without the AD being present.
The WGs felt that they were being left to fend for themselves when process 
issues came up, and complained.

So in reaction, it became customary to say that an AD should at least 
attempt to be present at every meeting of their WGs at an IETF - to help 
sort out issues that related to the WG's relationship with the rest of the 
IETF, as needed, or for clarifying issues that the AD has passed to the 
group from others (IESG document feedback, for instance).

And of course, when an AD feels responsible for his WGs, I don't think it's 
unreasonable for him/her to want to listen to the debate to get the "tenor 
of it" at least the 3 times a year that he/she has the chance.


                Harald