Dave Crocker <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> So, what sort of support?
> 1. Much, much better charters. For example, we do not even try to
> enforce the requirements specified in the Working Group Guidelines
> RFC.
> 2. Much better oversight of new working group chairs, to ensure that
> the group gets traction on its effort.
> 3. Insistence on review of major decisions along the way.
This is all spot on.
Where I think we are not actually doing enough of a good job is in
steps 1-2). But, I'd go a bit further.
When I think of successful WGs, they have a number of things going for
them, that go beyond the charter. They include:
1) Having a shared view/understanding of the problem and the general
outline of a solution. If you don't have this, the WG is saddled
from the start with a fundamental lack of consensus on a solution,
becuase they can't ever agree on whether a proposed solution
satisfies _their_ idea of what the problem is.
2) Building/having a "team", that serves as the critical mass and
"core competency" for the WG. This teams needs to have at least the
following set of skills (collectively):
a) project manager (i.e., puts together a pragamtic schedule --
something much more detailed than project milestones with
deadlines and nags folk to deliver, etc.)
b) good editors, who can translate what the WG is saying into text
that finds a good balance between readabilty and addressing the
concerns of the WG.
c) someone who follows the mailing list in real time and "manages"
discussion by closing off ratholes, summarizing on a regular
basis what the consensus seems to be, etc.
d) someone who is familiar enough with basic internet architecture
(and what other WGs are doing) to prevent the WG from making
decisions that are unlikely to be well-received by folk outside
the WG (and by implication the IESG). Also, a person that knows
what type of outside expertise needs to review the WG's work in
order for it to get the necessary broader cross-area approval. For
example, its a tad depressing how many times I've actually
_fought_ with WG chairs about the need for them to get a review
from, e.g., a radius or DNS expert. Well, if you don't get that
review early, you can be darn sure the IESG will demand it
later ... with obvious implications.
e) quality reviewers
f) A real push from a "customer" of the work to ensure that the
problem being addressed is a real problem and not one that is a
research problem that no vendor/user really cares about. It
really helps to have a clear customer saying "no, that doesn't
solve my problem" and "please decide issue X, it doesn't matter
what way the WG goes, but we do need the document to get
finished RSN"
I would assert that when one considers WGs that are successful, the
above pieces are usually all there (even if by accident), and where
WGs are off track, they are missing out on on one or more of the
above in rather big way.
Thus, a good charter is _necessary_ (usually), but by no means
sufficient by any means. And where we have the biggest problems in
practice is where the WG doesn't understand the above, but is willing
to go along with any charter the IESG allows in order for it to get
started.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf