Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> writes:
The issue with providing management assistance is to focus on
managing the work. That's an organizational orientation, not just a
tracking thing. It's about getting clarity of the work to be done
and of getting folks to do the work of contributing, writing,
reviewing, and debating in a timely manner, and achieving forward
progress in a timely manner.
Few working groups have enough detail to juggle to make this
something that hinges on the tools.
Strongly agree here.
Let me expand further on "work plan" and "project management".
It needs to be done on a per-document basis. I.e., Wouldn't it be nice
if every WG document was revised 3 times between meetings? I bet that
alone would change dynamics (assuming there were substantive
changes)...
But it extends to the WG as a whole. WGs have a finite number of
cycles. There are always a small number of core players (whether
editor, reviewer, etc.), and if you spread their resources too thinly,
a WG starts having problems.
Few WGs acknowledge that and try to manage it. Managing it means:
1) identifying core documents that are priority, and minimizing
distractions that will take cycles away from the priority
deliverables.
2) It may mean making concious decisions not to work on some documente
*yet* in order to concentrate resources where it matters
3) it means tying the work plan directly back to the charter. If the
two aren't in sync, one or both need changing.
4) It means recognizing that there are real limits to how many
documents a WG can (credibly) work on at any one time. (Too many WGs
have lots of marginal documents that suck cycles away from the
critical ones.) How many WGs say "no" to marginal documents?
Thomas