OPEN ISSUE: Quality Process WG Charter

[Margaret Wasserman]

Well, if we're going to try to put a BOF together for Vienna,
we better start soon...

The scheduling cut-off is looming, and it would also be good for
people to have time to get proposals/ideas documented before the
-00 I-D cut-off on June 23rd.

Who has cycles and would be willing to help?

Margaret


At 08:45 AM 5/29/2003 -0700, James Kempf wrote:
>Agree.
>
>             jak
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald at alvestrand.no>
>To: "Keith Moore" <moore at cs.utk.edu>; "Margaret Wasserman"
><mrw at windriver.com>
>Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
>Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 6:23 AM
>Subject: Re: OPEN ISSUE: Quality Process WG Charter
>
>
> >
> >
> > --On torsdag, mai 29, 2003 09:04:54 -0400 Keith Moore
><moore at cs.utk.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> So, do we have consensus to start the near-term WG to
> > >> improve the WG quality processes and IETF review
> > >> processes?
> > >
> > > I fear that if we do this, the WG will spend too much time on
>review
> > > processes and not enough time on WG operation.  But I'm not sure
>what to
> > > do about it: both subjects need attention, and if we created two
>separate
> > > WGs then the one working on extra-WG review might attract a lot
>more
> > > interest than the one working on WG operation.
> >
> > I think this WG would/should be focused on the WG process, and
>review as
> > one tool to improve that process.
> > This should not be confused with the issues surrounding end-of-line
>IESG
> > review (although one hopes that improving one would make the other
>far less
> > problematic).
> >
> > My understanding....
> >
> >                Harald
> >
> >