What you write could probably be accomplished as a 'Technical Advisor'
that some WGs have and is listed in the charter pages ?
it could be an expansion of that role. in my mind, such people would
have explicit authority to specify the agenda for WG discussions, and
some explicit responsibilities to the responsible AD that may not be
defined at present.
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.
yes, I'm generally thinking senior IETF people who are familiar with
the processes, and who are also familiar with engineering disciplines
(whether by education or experience using them)
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.
it certainly implies a significant change to the role of WG chair, and
I can imagine some chairs not wanting to give up that much control.
the thing to do is to cultivate an effective working relationship
between the chair and supervisor, where the chair sees the supervisor
as someone who helps the WG's progress more quickly and helps the WG
make its case to IESG. but I see the supervisor as ultimately
responsible to the AD rather than to the WG, so there's some inherent
conflict there.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf