Re: WG Chairs Training

[Spencer Dawkins <spencer_dawkins@yahoo.com>]

OK, this is very fair.

I don't want to generate lots of process work, but is it worth
having a checklist for each working group that says (for
instance)

"When our working group adopts this draft (check one):

- the editor needs to reflect working group consensus
- the editor needs to reflect working group consensus
  but may be asked to present strawperson roadblock-breaker
  text if we need it
- the editor is allowed to make structural changes,
  but not technical changes
- the editor is allowed to continue to work on the draft
  as an individual"

Just so we make some choices explicit and remove surprises when
an editor DOES continue to work on a working group draft as an
individual - which I'm not sure is ALWAYS a bad thing, just when

it's a surprise?

Another might be

"This design team will provide a draft that (choose one):

- will be evaluated as any other non-working group draft
- will be accepted because we're putting the design team
  together to make a binding choice
- will be accepted as working group baseline text, and then
  we'll make changes required for working group acceptance"

All of which are situations I've observed with design teams in
the past.

And we could start making up the checklist as we go, and have a
pretty good one in a couple of years without a big effort now.

I've seen a couple of posts on this list from chairs who said
they didn't realize what choices they were making implicitly (by

saying nothing), and I've been there, too, so -

I appreciate Thomas's support for flexibility and trust of WG
chairs, I'm just thinking about WG chairs who may not realize
when someone is trusting them to do the right thing in a
specific situation.

Spencer

--- Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> IMO, consistency is generally good. But we also need
> flexibility.
>
> At a minimum, it would be good if folk understood the issues
> related
> to process issues, and how poor implementation of internal
> processes
> has led to plenty of real process/WG problems and how better
> execution
> of internal processes can really help to avoid such problems.
> Giving
> examples of the kinds of problems that can and have occurred
> is often
> illuminating, especialy when folk don't have so much direct
> experience
> themselves.
>
> Armed with such a background, we also need to allow chairs
> some
> flexibility in tailoring internal procesesses to the specific
> situation of individual WGs.
>
> What needs to be clear though is that it is the responsibility
> of the
> chairs to minimize process problems, with failure to do so
> having the
> obvious unfortunate consequences.
>
> Thomas

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com