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

Keith Moore moore at cs.utk.edu
Mon Mar 3 14:18:05 CET 2003


> Now, from a descriptive standpoint, it's clear that we don't
> live in either of these worlds. On the one hand, the chairs
> don't really run the working group--I think your message makes
> that pretty clear, actually. On the other hand, the ADs 
> fairly routinely impose stuff on the WGs even though the
> WGs may have consensus to the contrary.

this is true, and it's awkward.  WGs tend to work in isolation, so
they think that their consensus is all that matters.  never mind if what
they're doing will cause major problems for other concerns.  when ADs
impose stuff on those WGs, that may be a good thing.

of course it's also possible that AD is imposing stuff to autocratically
set technical direction which isn't supported by any strong
constituency. setting the direction shouldn't be left to one or two
people, but neither is it a good idea for the organization to have no
sense of direction...

> >From a prescriptive standpoint, a lot of the complaining
> I hear about document quality seems to me to be of the
> form that the chairs aren't really exercising independent
> technical judgement the way that the ADs do. 

some chairs try to steer their groups in particular directions; others
view their job as that of scheduler and/or process manager (like your
parliament model).  I actually have more problems with the former kind
of management style - because I've seen too many chairs try to steer
groups toward favoring their own (or their employer's) solution (sigh). 
OTOH a wise chair can sometimes steer a WG away from needless
complexity.

I'm starting to think that we need a clear separation between process
managers and technical direction setters, at both the WG level and the
organizational level.

Keith


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list