On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Keith Moore wrote:
The concept of Technical Supervisors could be tried on two or three working
groups and refined based on experience. Initially the supervisors might be
appointed by the AD and confirmed by IESG; eventually there might be a
separate mechanism for nominating and vetting potential supervisors. Ideally
a working group would keep the same supervisor as long as it is chartered,
though it would be possible to change a WG's supervisor - particularly one
who wasn't doing his job well.
Supervising a WG shouldn't require more than say 2 hours per week.
There would need to be some way to recognize the contributions of WG
supervisors, and perhaps some incentives for taking on a job with low
visibility and minimal creative input.
What you write could probably be accomplished as a 'Technical Advisor'
that some WGs have and is listed in the charter pages ?
The key point here is that such technical supervisors should have
broad experience (preferably have been on the IESG, or have been
exposed to the work, e.g., by being a chair of a WG which produced a
lot of documents) to be able to have sufficient cross-area insight.
The most difficult issue would probably be the coordination between
the supervisors and chairs, and to a lesser degree, the ADs -- of
course depending how much authority and micromanagement of document
editors the supervisor would be required to do.
Personally, if each WG had just one "Techical Advisor" which would be
committed to reviewing the specifications early, and who would be at
the disposal of the chairs if there are doubts, we could be much
better off -- especially if a WG wouldn't have experienced chairs.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf