"Adult supervision"

Bound, Jim Jim.Bound at hp.com
Tue May 6 00:59:07 CEST 2003


> okay, let me put it more plainly:
> 
> 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

100% agree.  This took you time to write.  I appreciate that as a note.
This is what we should all do and not use cliches in discourse.

> 
> 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. 

We need to keep it at a logical and non-emotional or not in a folkway
manner.  But more importantly what you wrote was clear.  It was
meaningful.  Adult Supervision comments are useless.
 
> 
> 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.

I don't believe anyone is doing that (and definitely not me) but the
IESG is part of process and part of the problem.  

/jim

> 
> Keith
> 


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list