"Adult supervision"

[john.loughney at nokia.com]

Keith,

> working groups need to be populated with competent, experienced individuals
> working groups need to stick within their charters
> working groups need to be responsible for making sure that their work
>  fits the requirements for the document level that they're requesting
>  (proposed standard or whatever), including making sure that 
>  their work does not interfere with other interests or that reasonable 
>  compromises are worked out
> working groups need to adhere to process and ensure openness/fairness
> working groups need to operate in a disciplined enough fashion to produce
>  reasonably complete, good quality work within a reasonable timeframe
> working groups need to be able to be trusted to do these things independently

Speaking as a WG chair, I would say the above are reasonable points.
Also, I'd definately appreciate having more support from experienced
IETFer's (including IESG & IAB members).  Its a little difficult
trying to know everything, so having participation by people
who've been through the process a few times.

> it's when working groups fail to do these things that people (not just in
> IESG) say that the groups need "adult supervision" - because lack of knowledge
> and experience, lack of discipline, irresponsibility, and the need for
> constant supervision are characteristics of children.  there's a reason these
> terms are occasionally used - it's because they sometimes fit.  

Too often, I've seen quips used in place of real management skills and
professional courtesy.  I think this is part of the source of resentment ...

> maybe we should stop trying to pin all of the blame on IESG and start
> seriously looking at how dysfunctionally many of our working 
> groups operate.

And maybe we all try acting like adults and focus more on achieving our
goals - fixing blame all around probably is not hard; figuring out
how to distribute the fixes (including knowing what the fixes are)
seems to be a bit more difficult.

br,
John