I don't think there is any general solution to the "early vs.
complete" tradeoff [1],
IMHO, that general answer is; having good organisation or management
from all parts participants, discussion chairs and from directors.
nor, as long as we keep trying to deal
with things as collections of disconnected pieces rather than
systems, to the issues created by WGs with significant overlaps
in either scope or technology.
It is good to have systems that is why we need WGs with procedures,
and it is good to have collections-of-ideas (can be disconnected) that
is why we need diversed participants in each system/WG.
I am against the disconnection idea of pieces/work, we need both
connection and disconnection. The pieces SHOULD be always connected as
long it serves the same subject/issue/scope, but can disconnected when
we look into applications/projects.
What I think we can do is to be
particularly vigilant to be sure that the two WGs are tracking
and frequently reviewing each other's work. At least RTCWEB
and ECRIT are in the same area, which should make that
coordination easier than it might be otherwise.
From my new monitoring/experience of IETF, I don't think same area WGs
are coordinated in working related to their pieces. Management SHOULD
organise such coordination.
AB
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This message is not sent to private address, only sent to IETF.
My thoughts are writen in a message for the IETF not for other party,
if you want to comment on the thoughts, please comment on the message
idea/content not on the author or his/her thoughts/methods.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[1] Watch for a note about this that I've been trying to
organize for about two weeks and hope to finish and post this
weekend.