Subject: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Further Work on WG (chair) Roles -- MPOWR WG Proposal

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:23:07 -0500

We had a lengthy discussion regarding the MPOWR WG proposal
that was circulated by the IESG.  The discussion started on
the Solutions mailing list and was brought to mpowr in mid-
stream by Margaret Wasserman.

This discussion can be loosely categorized into three
separate sub-discussions:

    (1) Should we form a WG to move some responsibility
        and authority from the IESG to WGs or WG chairs?
    (2) Does it make sense to give WG chairs more document
        shepherding responsibility, and if so what is the
        best way to do that?
    (3) Should WG chairs have the authority to block
        documents due to low technical quality,
        insufficient review, etc.?

I will summarize each of these sub-discussions separately,
and attempt determine if we have reached any useful
conclusions.  See the next three SUMMARY messages for
these summaries.

Margaret

_______________________________________________
mpowr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:34:30 -0700 (MST)

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> This discussion can be loosely categorized into three separate
> sub-discussions:
>

It would be nice if you could replace "WG chairs" with "WG" in all of
the above items when categorizing. There was no consensus whether WG
Chair should be the object of these changes or the WG as a whole.
Let's stick with a more general case (WG as a whole) for now and
decide on Chair/author/participant role at the next level of detail.
This approach will prevent people like me from objecting to your
categorization itself as a starting point.

Thanks,

Alex.

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:44:34 -0600

>categorization itself as a starting point.

#1 already talks about "WGs or WG chairs", so it seems you're only 
talking about #2 and #3. Replacing "WG chairs" with WG in #3 makes no 
sense: Of course a WG can stop a document in the current procedures. 
So (unless I'm mistaken), you only care about changing the words in 
#2. Correct? If so, let's drop this discussion here and talk about it 
in the summary of shepherding. Otherwise, please explain.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:05:38 -0700 (MST)

-- Was [mpowr] SUMMARY: Further Work on WG (chair) Roles -- MPOWR WG Proposal

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Pete Resnick wrote:

> talking about #2 and #3. Replacing "WG chairs" with WG in #3 makes
> no sense: Of course a WG can stop a document in the current
> procedures.

My understanding is that WG cannot stop a document if IESG wants to
publish it. WG does not have the power to stop IESG from making a
change and then publishing a document with that change. However, you
are probably thinking of pre-IESG decisions here.

> #2. Correct? If so, let's drop this discussion here and talk about
> it in the summary of shepherding.

OK.

My point is that we should not start every discussion with "let's give
WG Chair power to do X". We should start every discussion with "let's
give WG power to do X" and only after there is consensus about that we
should discuss how WG can use/express that power (via Chairs, authors,
appointed representatives, automated means, etc.).

Alex.