Re: [Solutions] Re: [mpowr] Re: Quality Control and that nasty A word

[Alex Conta <[e-mail]>]

Dave,

Managing the authors from a timeline perspective is one thing, managing 
them in terms of content of documents they write is a different thing.
While the former should be part of the chair's job, I strongly believe 
the latter should not. Adequate checks and balances have to be in place.

Mentoring is important. It does not have to be done by the chairs 
though. It can be done by more senior members of the WG, or co-authors, 
or from outside the WG. If an educational arm is being organized, that 
could be given such a  mentoring role as well.

Regards,
Alex

David Meyer wrote:
> 	Alex,
> 
> 
>>>If the WG chairs being the last resort should not be a concern, it means 
>>>no one is interested in the work of that WG, so the WG should be 
>>>disbanded, and the work filed as it is - incomplete work, could be 
>>>resumed later, if interest revives.
> 
> 
> 	While I agree that in a perfect (maybe different) world,
> 	this could be true. In addition, you might make a similar
> 	assertion when consensus can't be reached (notably: "No
> 	one cares enough about this problem to compromise on a
> 	solution" or similar). However, the reality is somewhat
> 	different. In the former case (WG chairs as last resort),
> 	there are just too many issues surrounding how authors 
> 	work in a volunteer organization to make such a
> 	(categorical) statement.
> 
> 	In fact, one of the jobs of a WG chair (IMO) is to manage
> 	and (frequently overlooked, but equally important) mentor
> 	the WG's authors. 
> 
> 	Dave
> 	
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpowr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr
> 
>