RE: A concept resurrected(?) - WG secretary?

[john.loughney@nokia.com]

Hi Margaret,

As a single WG chair (no co-chair), I think that a WG Secretary
would be a good thing.  I've just put out an APB to my WG to 
see if the WG thinks it is a bad idea; and if anyone is interested
in volunteering for it.

I'm all for delegating responsibilities whenever possible.

thanks,
John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Margaret.Wasserman@nokia.com
> [mailto:Margaret.Wasserman@nokia.com]
> Sent: 12 October, 2003 18:52
> To: wgchairs@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: A concept resurrected(?) - WG secretary?
> 
> 
> 
> There has been a fairly negative response to the idea of allowing WG 
> chairs to officially name WG secretaries.  I am surprised by this for 
> three reasons:
> 
> 	- There was nothing in this proposal that required
> 		all WGs to have WG secretaries.
> 	- This proposal was offered as a constructive way to 
> 		solve a set of evident, IETF-wide problems.
> 	- There are few, if any, alternate proposals on the
> 		to address these problems.
> 
> What are the problems?
> 
> From my perspective, a WG secretariat could add much-needed
> cycles to help solve the following problems:
> 
> 	- WG minutes are not submitted, submitted late, incomplete
> 		and/or of such poor quality as to be completely
> 		useless
> 	- WG agendas are not posted, posted late, incomplete and/or
> 		of such poor quality as to be completely useless
> 	- WG mailing lists aren't well-managed, and summaries
> 		aren't sent after lengthy discussions.
> 
> Now, I'll admit that there may be some WGs for which all of these
> things are being done, and done well on a timely basis...  But, can
> you name one?  These problems apply to a large enough majority of
> the IETF groups that I think they can be considered IETF-wide 
> problems.
> 
> Why are minutes, agendas and summaries important?
> 
> We assert that it is possible to be a full contributor in the
> IETF without attending meetings.  Bad or missing meeting minutes
> make that more difficult.
> 
> The minutes are the only long-term, archived record of what was
> discussed and decided in our meetings.  They can be very important
> later, if it is necessary to know what a group decided and why.
> 
> Agendas allow people to prepare for meetings and to know which
> meetings they should attend. 
> 
> And summaries could help to make WG mailing lists productive, 
> breaking us out of the make-progress-every-four-months cycle 
> that most WGs seem to be locked in.
> 
> I am the first to admit that my WGs have not been exemplary at
> these things.  Have yours?  If not, do you think a WG secretary
> might help?  
> 
> The responses on this list have generally been of the form:
> 
> 	- I prefer to pick scribes at the meetings, because...
> 
> or
> 
> 	- I (the chair) find a tape recording more useful
> 		than notes from scribes or a secretary...
> 
> If these things are working, then why are our minutes so late and
> so poorly done?  Why are so many minutes missing altogether?
> 
> Margaret
> 
> 
>