On May 17, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 5/17/2013 7:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote: >> But WGs should be able to periodically summarize what they're doing - >> what problem they're trying to solve, what approach they're taking, what >> technologies they're using, what major decisions they've made, what the >> current sticking points seem to be, what problems are as yet unresolved, >> what potential for cross-group and cross-area effects have been >> identified, and what efforts have been made to get the affected parties >> in the loop. For most groups that summary should be maybe 2-3 pages. >> The ADs should be able to verify that those summaries are accurate and >> reasonably complete, or appoint a trusted WG observer other than the >> chair to review each summary. ADs and other members of the community >> should be able to view those summaries and comment on their accuracy. > > > The idea that working groups should be required to issue periodic project progress reports seems strikingly reasonable and useful. > > This makes the folks who are the most knowledgeable responsible for assessing their work, and should facilitate public review. Recording the sequence of reports into the wg datatracker could nicely allow evaluating progress over time. > > It also, of course, nicely distributes the work. > > d/ " From: WG Chair To: ietf@xxxxxxxx Sunbject: Progress Report - Foo WG There has been zero activity on the FOO list in the last three months (except for that "Fake Conference" message everybody got last month). I've tried emailing the WG document authors twice, but they're not answering my emails. So, the WG has 2 documents: draft-ietf-foo-use-cases-03, and draft-ietf-foo-proto-01. The use case document is just about done, but we haven't really started discussing the proto document. We haven't met in Orlando, and are unlikely to meet in Berlin That's it for this report. Cheers WGC "