Subject: what is a wg chair's job was: Simplistic metrics Re: WG management

From: "John Loughney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 17:47:38 -0400

Harald,

Your mail prompted me to write a mail I have been contemplating (but I'm 
actually sending this via my phone, so I'm keeping this brief).

What is a wg chairs job? I can think of several tasks:
 1) cheerleader (go wg, go!)
 2) mediator (Mr. x, you need a time-out!)
 3) task manager (draft-foobar is 1.8 weeks late.)
 4) key contributor (I think the header field should be 2.1 bytes long.)
 5) big-picture type (the internet needs a protocols for signaling 
morality.)

With the above tasks, chairs can be active or more reactive, sometimes 
depending upon the situation. 

What I thinks is needed, however, is that the chair and the ad cooperate 
well and have a good understanding of how things are working.  I also think 
that while we can blame the IESG or the wg chair, but I think a key point 
we've often overlooked is the  ad-chair relationship.  If a chair knows 
what the ad reaction will be when sending a draft to the IESG, then this 
may help avoid the late suprise, Also, if an ad knows what is happening 
(roughly) in a wg, then they can help provide some insight into ho to get 
things unstuck.

I thinks this calls for the ads and chairs to be in touch and discussing 
things frequently, even chair reviews by the IESGs (say once a year) and 
maybe even joint wg status reviews. 

John L. 

_____ Original message _____
Subject:	Simplistic metrics Re: WG management
Author:	"Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
Date:		21st June 2005 10:34:48  AM

--On 20. juni 2005 07:39 -0500 Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]> 

wrote:

> Two related problems here, as you pointed out in another posting - 
when
> the WG is only active for six weeks per year, and when the WG chair 
is
> only active for nine weeks per year. I don't see how we can focus on 
this
> with our current milestone tracking ("no, really, we'll finish that 
draft
> by the NEXT meeting, this time for sure"), so your comments in the
> "front-end delays" thread apply here as well.

Let me offer a simplistic metric.....

if a WG chair has posted nothing to the WG mailing list for a week, and 

that WG chair has not told the WG he's on holiday, that WG chair is 

probably not doing his/her job.

If NOBODY's posted to the WG mailing list for a week, it's time to close 

the WG.

Harald

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Tom Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:58:26 +0200

- Original Message -----
From: "John Loughney" <[email-masked]>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 11:47 PM
Subject: what is a wg chair's job was: Simplistic metrics Re: WG management

>  4) key contributor (I think the header fieldÂ should be 2.1 bytes long.)

For me, this list of items misses the point of having a chair, which IMO is to
focus the discussion, the work, on the tasks in hand, so that they get done in a
timely fashion.

Ironically, I see precisely this not happening at present on this list (which I
see as unchaired - IETF chairs may contribute but I do not expect them to chair
this list).  I refer to the thread on
'Last Call: 'Email Submission Between Independent Networks' to BCP -
Clarification'
which has wandered over many interesting topics, few of which have been directly
relevant to the last call in question, few of which actually contribute to the
task in hand which is to determine whether or not the document in question is
ready to be advanced.

And a lesser point; I think that the more effective WGs are those where the
chairs are not key contributors, rather it is the I-D authors who are the key
contributors and the chairs ..... well they chair:-)

Tom Petch

<snip>

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:25:02 +0200

>focus the discussion, the work, on the tasks in hand, so that they get 

A chair should start from the Charter and make sure it is well and 
consensually understood (all the more if there are different understanding 
which should be identified and documented to the AD for guidance). This 
should help building a discussion road map, the Chair should help the WG to 
focus on or to update.

I am not sure all the Chairs follows this basic method. I mean I never met 
one yet. But I did not share in many WG enough to have good statistics.
jfc