Actually, based on experience in effective and ineffective working groups,
I don't think the 1 week (or even two weeks) suggested below is a
reasonable measure of activity.
When I was a WG chair, there were often multi-week periods when I did not
post anything to the list. Sometimes this was because nothing was
happening. Sometimes it was because the design teams were making good
progress. Note that this could mean that the design team was working to
get something coherent to post to the list, and therefore nothing appeared
from anyone on the list.
In other working groups I have been in, there have often been multi-week
periods where the work is going well and there are plenty of posts on the
list, just none from the chairs because there is no need for them to post.
So, I think measuring the chairs posting rate is not a good measure of
Measuring activity on the working group mailing list is probably
sensible. But a one week time horizon is usually wrong.
At 10:34 AM 6/21/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 20. juni 2005 07:39 -0500 Spencer Dawkins
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
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list