On 5/17/2013 7:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
But WGs should be able to periodically summarize what they're doing -
what problem they're trying to solve, what approach they're taking, what
technologies they're using, what major decisions they've made, what the
current sticking points seem to be, what problems are as yet unresolved,
what potential for cross-group and cross-area effects have been
identified, and what efforts have been made to get the affected parties
in the loop. For most groups that summary should be maybe 2-3 pages.
The ADs should be able to verify that those summaries are accurate and
reasonably complete, or appoint a trusted WG observer other than the
chair to review each summary. ADs and other members of the community
should be able to view those summaries and comment on their accuracy.
The idea that working groups should be required to issue periodic
project progress reports seems strikingly reasonable and useful.
This makes the folks who are the most knowledgeable responsible for
assessing their work, and should facilitate public review. Recording the
sequence of reports into the wg datatracker could nicely allow
evaluating progress over time.
It also, of course, nicely distributes the work.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net