"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