Subject: [dispatch] Feedback on the process of chartering mini WGs

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:12:39 +0200

Folks,

Now that we are gaining experience with the new RAI processes, it is
important to get feedback on how they are working.

We have received some emails indicating that the fact that mini WGs
sometimes take a while to get chartered can slow things down. Of course,
the faster the mini WGs get chartered the better. However, it is
important that folks continue with their technical work in parallel with
the chartering process. That is, the technical work does not need to
stop when DISPATCH decides to charter a given effort and resume when the
mini WG is chartered. It is expected that people continue working while
the ADs take care of the chartering process. We have created many
mailing lists before the chartering process is over and even
face-to-face meetings could be arranged as DISPATCH ad-hocs, if really
needed (we have already indicated that work can often progress without
face-to-face meetings). So, the tools for people to perform their
technical work should be available.

Also, we have received feedback regarding chairing mini WGs. It seems
some companies see chairing a WG as a long-term commitment and do not
make it easy for their people to take on chair roles. Note that the
charter of the mini WGs we will be chartering will say that they are
short-term focused efforts. Therefore, after two or three IETF cycles
the WG will be either done with its deliverables or will be shut down
because it did not manage to deliver. In both cases, the chair is not
required to make a long-term commitment.

Getting further feedback and ideas on these or related issues would of
course be great.

Thanks,

Gonzalo
DISPATCH co-chair

---

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 12:41:38 +0100

With particular reference to the proposed session recording WG, it seems I will be called upon to chair this, when it is finally established. I believe those interested in this work are keen to see it progressing quickly, so we should aim to have topics to discuss at IETF#77, either at a meeting of the new WG, if it is formed by then, or at a DISPATCH ad hoc meeting. So during the next week or so, please give some thought to this and suggest possible agenda items.

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Gonzalo Camarillo
> Sent: 05 February 2010 11:13
> To: DISPATCH
> Cc: Mary Barnes
> Subject: [dispatch] Feedback on the process of chartering mini WGs
> 
> Folks,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 13:20:54 +0100

> 
> Also, we have received feedback regarding chairing mini WGs. 
> It seems some companies see chairing a WG as a long-term 
> commitment and do not make it easy for their people to take 
> on chair roles. Note that the charter of the mini WGs we will 
> be chartering will say that they are short-term focused 
> efforts. Therefore, after two or three IETF cycles the WG 
> will be either done with its deliverables or will be shut 
> down because it did not manage to deliver. In both cases, the 
> chair is not required to make a long-term commitment.
> 

Do we already have experience with any dispatch-originated mini-WG
having completed in 2-3 IETF cycles? We need to be careful here, I
think, as the task of the WG chairs does not end with the submission of
the documents to the IESG but continues during all the review period
(with strong involvment in the cases when the chair is also shepherding
documents) and we tend to declare WG's concluded and shut them down
after the last document in the charter was published. So, shorter life
cycles than the usual WG's - yes, two-three cycles as typical life time
- I do not know. 

Dan

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:30:45 +0200

Hi Dan,

good point. This is something worthwhile considering. In any case, after
the WG submits all its documents to the IESG, the chair/shepherd's
commitment level is comparable to that of a document editor. That is, it
has to monitor (and help with) the progression of the draft but does not
need to perform many other administrative-oriented activities chairs
normally do. Therefore, their work load should be lower at that point in
time.

Thanks for the feedback!

Gonzalo