Re: [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair) roles - MPOWR WG proposal

["James Kempf" <[e-mail]>]

Dave,

> JK> any review mechanism needs to be binding on the WG,
>
> This moves us back to the "authority" focus, rather than the "consensus"
> focus. Certainly a working group is obligated to deal with comments it
> receives. But what does it mean for those comments to be "binding"?
> Going down that path gets more complicated, because then we must deal
> with questions about the expertise and intent of the reviewer.
>

To my mind, it means the same thing as in software product development when
the QA team comes back to the development group with a list of bugs that
caused their regression tests to fail: the code doesn't go to the customers
until the development group has fixed the problems. What would you call this
if "authority" doesn't sound right? The product group manager isn't acting
as a dictator, he's trying to make sure the product is salable. The division
director isn't going to let him/her ship their code to customers until the
bugs are fixed because they both know that the customers won't buy it.
Presumably the QA group was selected for their expertise (otherwise, they
wouldn't have gotten the job) and their intent is the same as for the
product development group: to ensure that the product is of the highest
possible quality so customers buy it. Both the development group and the
product group manager know this, as does the QA group. The product
development manager gets to say when adequate QA has been done, and
typically that's based on his/her judgement about the impact of the
remaining bugs on customer usability. I don't see much difference here from
the case we are discussing, do you?

I don't want to imply by this that the only check on quality should be a
final review, quite the contrary. Early review is far better as a quality
check, and the WG should also be responsible for coming up with their own
quality review plan. BTW, quality review plans are now starting to show up
in new proposed charters.

> Working groups are usually diligent at dealing with comments.  When they
> aren't, it provides further examples that the wg is rogue.
>

Well, obviously we have had different experiences in this area. What's your
definition of rogue? That they don't live up to their charter or try to
exceed it? What if they fufill the charter but the result of what they come
up with is poorly designed?

                    jak


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