Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-hardie-wg-stuckees-00.txt

["James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>]

I briefly scanned this draft yesterday, and it seems to encode basically what
most WG chairs currently do informally anyway, or, at least, those I've had
exposure to or done myself.

I think this is a really hard issue and I don't see any solution. In some WGs,
the amount of interest and contribution is so enormous that it is almost
overwhelming. For example, people on the MIP list are right now quibbling over
the dotting of i's and crossing of t's in the MIPv6 draft. The IPv6 list seems
to be the same. On the other hand, I've been having a hard time getting any
contribution for SEND, even out of designated design team members, except to
have them show up for periodic teleconferences. The two co-chairs and the
document editor seem to be the only ones who want to do any work.

The problem is that IETF is a volunteer group, and the leadership really has no
leverage over people who come along for the ride. We could do as IEEE does, and
institute banquets for all when a major milestone is complete, and plaques for
those who work especially hard to complete it, but given the scope of IETF
activity (and perhaps my skepticism about carrots that really don't have any
nutritional value, or maybe in the case of banquets, too much :-), this seems
somewhat questionable.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman" <ho@alum.mit.edu>
To: <hardie@qualcomm.com>
Cc: <wgchairs@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-hardie-wg-stuckees-00.txt


> The way it's written it sound like too much stick and not enough
> carrot.  How about having stuckee status be an award conferred by the
> chairs, based on contributions?  Keep the list on the web page.  That
> is, if chairs really want to do this much record keeping, policy
> setting, and enforcement.
>
> Item 10 seems very controversial.  Even if there are many informed
> technical people supporting something, if the stuckees are divided
> or ambivalent or uninterested, then the item cannot be considered a
> consensus.  This seems too severe.
>
> But, despite all the mechanism, I'm not sure what the advantage is
> over having the chairs say, as they often do, "if no one is interested
> enough in this work to comment on it, then we will seek dissolution of
> the WG".  The stuckee method is just a very complicated way of getting
> at the same idea ("the number of stuckees has fallen below the minimum
> level for WG").
>
> Hilarie
>
>