[Mpowr] RE: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair) roles - MPOWR WG proposal

[[e-mail]]

 
Hi Scott, 
> I do think that a focused discussion on the role of the WG 
> (and WG chair) in the context of the IETF process is a "good 
> idea." And, I think that having that discussion in the context 
> of an IETF  WG is a reasonable way to proceed but I'd rather 
> not define the output in the charter before the discussion 
> starts.

I agree.  So, let's start this discussion on the [e-mail]
mailing list, and see if we can decide (together as a community)
whether we need a WG in this area and, if so, what the charter
for that WG should be.
> 
> I do not think that the is IETF consensus on what the role of 
> the WG (and chairs) *currently* is relative to ADs and the IESG 
> so it seems getting ahead of the discussion by quite a bit to 
> assume that the relationship needs to change.

I continue to agree.

> Lets figure out what we want the roles to be and clearly document them
> (if indeed "clearly document" is felt to be a good thing - flexibility
> can be very helpful sometimes)

This sounds like a reasonable place to start to me.

> then someone (historians?) can figure out in retrospect if doing that 
> resulted in a power shift and if it did, what direction the shift was.

I'm not sure that it matters, historically, whether there has
been a power shift over time.

Instead, I think we should focus (after reaching a common 
uncerstanding on what our current state actually is) on whether
the current model is working well enough or needs to be fixed
in some way.

Margaret


_______________________________________________
Mpowr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr