Re: Comments on draft-wasserman-wg-process

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>]

At 11:11 PM 7/12/2003 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> In general, I like this document. It has the very good property that what 
> it says seems obvious in retrospect, yet I couldn't have expressed it 
> clearly before reading the document.
Thanks.

> Section 2.1 - Initial submission: there's a "not" missing - it says "does 
> fit within the charter", and then discusses how to make it fit......
>
> I think the exit criteria should also involve some minimum quality of the 
> document, and some conviction on the part of the WG chair (and the WG, 
> when presented there) that the proposed approach is feasible. This should 
> also be done in later stages, of course - but even in the initial stage, 
> "won't work" should be a valid reason to reject a submission.
I agree.  The goal is to avoid taking work into the pipe that we
don't believe should exit.  It should be much easier (and is
much fairer) to say 'no' earlier in the process than to wait
until someone has invested months updating a draft based on WG
input, etc.

> In sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 (Author refinemenet and WG acceptance), the 
> document may also be "owned" by a wg-independent design team; I don't 
> think such a design team can "own" a document once it's been handed over 
> to a WG-appointed editor, but I think the WG may choose to establish its 
> own (WG-appointed) design team to assist the editor in clarifying choices 
> and redesigns requested by the WG.
Yes, I agree that adding the concept of design teams into this
document (at both levels) would make sense.

Thanks for the feedback.  I'll incorporate this into the next
version if there is any consensus to go forward with this work.

Margaret