> I don't think there is any general solution to the "early vs. > complete" tradeoff [1], IMHO, that general answer is; having good organisation or management from all parts participants, discussion chairs and from directors. > nor, as long as we keep trying to deal > with things as collections of disconnected pieces rather than > systems, to the issues created by WGs with significant overlaps > in either scope or technology. It is good to have systems that is why we need WGs with procedures, and it is good to have collections-of-ideas (can be disconnected) that is why we need diversed participants in each system/WG. I am against the disconnection idea of pieces/work, we need both connection and disconnection. The pieces SHOULD be always connected as long it serves the same subject/issue/scope, but can disconnected when we look into applications/projects. > What I think we can do is to be > particularly vigilant to be sure that the two WGs are tracking > and frequently reviewing each other's work. At least RTCWEB > and ECRIT are in the same area, which should make that > coordination easier than it might be otherwise. >From my new monitoring/experience of IETF, I don't think same area WGs are coordinated in working related to their pieces. Management SHOULD organise such coordination. AB +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This message is not sent to private address, only sent to IETF. My thoughts are writen in a message for the IETF not for other party, if you want to comment on the thoughts, please comment on the message idea/content not on the author or his/her thoughts/methods. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > [1] Watch for a note about this that I've been trying to > organize for about two weeks and hope to finish and post this > weekend. >