I suspect each regular IETF participant knows WGs that are well-led
and others that could stand improvement. WG chairs are crucial in
ensuring progress, but there doesn't seem to be any real, transparent
evaluation of their efforts. Some possibilities:
(1) It is hard to "fire" WG chairs - they are often friends and
colleagues. Unfortunately, many stay on when their job
responsibilities have changed and they can no longer dedicate the
necessary time.
Solution: Institute WG chair term limits of (say) one or two years.
That way, there is an expectation of change and the possibility for
more people to prove themselves. With two chairs, staggering terms
ensures continuity.
(2) Some chairs are primarily active during the 3-week period prior
to the IETF meeting and moderate the meeting. They should consider
themselves project/product managers, not primarily as meeting
moderators. WG chair training needs to involve basic project
management training or WG selection should favor individuals that
have demonstrated their ability to deliver projects and products and
to manage people in doing so. If necessary, those with mostly
technical interests can serve on directorates.
(3) All WGs should have a WG secretary as a "junior chair", keeping
track of deadlines, LC comments and the like. WG secretaries need to
be listed on the WG web page. The expectation is that a good WG
secretary will be promoted to chair, thus providing an incentive.
Some WGs do this today, but it seems rare. (I don't think any are
listed on WG pages.)
Henning
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf