Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Let me offer a simplistic metric..... > > if a WG chair has posted nothing to the WG mailing list for a week, and > that WG chair has not told the WG he's on holiday, that WG chair is > probably not doing his/her job. Much though I remain a staunch fan of Harald, I must call this too simplistic. There are certainly last-call situations in which it is inappropriate for a WGC to offer too many opinions. There are also ordinary situations in which it's clear that discussion is active, but shy of any issue being ripe for a consensus call. > If NOBODY's posted to the WG mailing list for a week, it's time to close > the WG. Tempting, certainly... ;^) But unwise. (In context, to be fair, Harald was replying to Spencer's comments about WGs which wake up two weeks before each IETF meeting and promptly resume their slumber after the meeting closes.) Nobody should post to a WG mailing-list just for the sake of maintaining an appearance of activity. Counting the posts is simply the wrong metric. Also, one week is the wrong timeframe. Many human-relations issues can benefit from a two-week cooling-down period. I do believe there's some benefit if the Edu team were to list some prodding techniques that a WGC could use when activity seems too low. But only if a WGC chair fails to try _any_ of those would I opine s/he's not doing his/her job. Harald also fails to consider situations where's it's appropriate for a WG to have no immediate agenda items, but be available for an expected future item. I hope folks won't ignore the benefit of such situations. -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf