Re: Uneccesary slowness.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Thomas,

>  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. ...
>  2) Building/having a "team", that serves as the critical mass and
>    "core competency" ...
>    a) project manager ...
>    b) good editors, ...
>    c) someone who follows the mailing list in real time and "manages"
>       discussion by closing off ratholes...
>    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...
>    e) quality reviewers
>    f) A real push from a "customer" of the work...


I like your list.  It also happens to be in line with the contents of (I think 
Section 2) of the Working Group Guidelines RFC, although there are bits that 
go beyond it nicely.

Although they often are essential, reviewers are not required 100% of the 
time. Working groups often have sufficient expertise and focus, as well as 
other forms of feedback, to get away without formal review.  However many 
working groups suffer from lack of such sanity checking early in their 
efforts.

The benefit of having an architecture expert is both essential and dangerous.  
Essential for the reasons you cite, as well as to improve the likelihood of 
developing a solution that will work long-term and in large-scale.  Dangerous 
because it has the potential to insert a block -- the reviewer -- who is too 
abstracted from the actual demands of the topic, thereby missing the adequacy 
of a proffered solution.

Item c is probably the most seriously missing component from problematic 
working groups.  Given the diversity of current participation, list 
discussions DO need to be managed, in order to assure some assemblance of 
focus and (forward) progress.


>  Thus, a good charter is _necessary_ (usually), but by no means
>  sufficient by any means. 

right.


  d/
  ---
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  +1.408.246.8253
  dcrocker  a t ...
  WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net



_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]