What you write could probably be accomplished as a 'Technical Advisor' that some WGs have and is listed in the charter pages ?
it could be an expansion of that role. in my mind, such people would have explicit authority to specify the agenda for WG discussions, and some explicit responsibilities to the responsible AD that may not be defined at present.
The key point here is that such technical supervisors should have broad experience (preferably have been on the IESG, or have been exposed to the work, e.g., by being a chair of a WG which produced a lot of documents) to be able to have sufficient cross-area insight.
yes, I'm generally thinking senior IETF people who are familiar with the processes, and who are also familiar with engineering disciplines (whether by education or experience using them)
The most difficult issue would probably be the coordination between the supervisors and chairs, and to a lesser degree, the ADs -- of course depending how much authority and micromanagement of document editors the supervisor would be required to do.
it certainly implies a significant change to the role of WG chair, and I can imagine some chairs not wanting to give up that much control. the thing to do is to cultivate an effective working relationship between the chair and supervisor, where the chair sees the supervisor as someone who helps the WG's progress more quickly and helps the WG make its case to IESG. but I see the supervisor as ultimately responsible to the AD rather than to the WG, so there's some inherent conflict there.
Keith
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf