Michael StJohns <msj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I would rephrase your comment slightly: "The key is a very time and
> work limited charter that can't be rechartered, and a ruthless
> chair/facilitator who is willing to kill the group if there's any hint
> of slowing."
> The "willing to do the work" is sort of hostage to the WG chair (and
> possibly the AD) enforcement of progress. Chair can declare failure
> if its obvious that rough consensus can't be reached within the group
> (way differing opinions on approaches to the topic - no structure
> complete draft by 6 months, no feature complete draft by a 1 year).
> Chair can declare failure on document creep. Etc.
The challenge is finding chairs like this!
They have to invested in the work, without actually being in the middle of
it. We already struggle with finding enough people to do the normal WG role.
To add to this, the need to tightly manage the group requires *more* time
(and political capital) rather less of it.
Having said, this I think it's worth ~3yr of process experiment.
> On the representational issue... maybe: a tiny WG with good
> representation gets to do a standard, a tiny WG with limited
> representation can at most get an Experimental or Informational. Trade
Experimental is not supposed to be a watered down STD, despite how many have
treated it :-)
But, I take your point that maybe restricting the kinds of outputs helps focus.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
