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

[Spencer Dawkins <spencer_dawkins@yahoo.com>]

Dear Margaret,

This was an excellent and thought-provoking e-mail.

The only question I'll add is, "Would acting as a WG secretary
help develop someone in your working group so they can
contribute more to IETF work?"

We're all over the IESG because they're too busy to develop
anyone who can help them be less busy. Is the WG secretary
concept an opportunity to help WG chairs?

Spencer

--- Margaret.Wasserman@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
>