Re: WG Chairs Training

[Aaron Falk <falk@isi.edu>]

Yes, setting expectations in the group and with the doc authors is
important and is difficult when you have a good idea yourself what the
possible outcomes are.  This is a(nother) good reason for mentoring or
partnering new chairs with experienced ones or having a good mind-meld
with your AD or all the above.

--aaron

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> 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
> 
>