----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:37 PM
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.
Some WG Chairs already do this and I find it most helpful. Even at the
most basic level, of what documents have changed status in the past
month and what have not, this provides a valuable measure of progress,
or lack thereof.
And what is management but finding out what is going on and intervening
when intervention is needed? And how can you know if you do not get
progress reports? And, who knows, at a basic level, this could be
automated from the I-D Tracker, no extra work for AD or WG Chair (except
for intervening when intervention is needed).
Tom Petch
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