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

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 12/9/03 at 5:02 PM -0500, Scott Bradner wrote:

>>The broad goal of this WG would be to shift more responsibility and 
>>authority to WGs, while ensuring appropriate accountability to the 
>>IETF as a whole.
>
>I have not seen a consensus that any such a shift is needed or a good idea.

I thought I heard a good deal of comment that shifting some 
*responsibility* to the chairs was a good idea. On the other hand, I 
agree: I certainly heard no consensus about shifting *authority*.

>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."

I think that discussion may be a good idea.

>And, I think that  having that discussion in the context of an IETF 
>WG is a reasonable way to proceed

And on that I disagree in the strongest possible terms. I think this 
is a phenomenally bad idea.

Right now any AD can, of his or her own choosing and without any 
change in 2026 or 2418, decide to make their WG chairs responsible 
for the technical writeup of documents, resolving last call issues, 
and shepherding of the document through the IESG including resolving 
discuss issues. An AD can choose to do this now without asking the 
IETF for any consensus whatsoever.

Personally, I think this would be a good thing for an AD to do 
anyway. It certainly has every appearance of addressing the workload 
problem and some more of the transparency problem.

This is not worthy of a WG. It is worthy of implementation.

Having discussions on whether or not it would be a good idea to 
increase the powers and authority of a WG or WG chair might be 
interesting. Having ongoing discussions to decide whether or not 
increasing the responsibilities of WG chairs is working out (once 
started; see previous paragraph) is fine. But forming a WG when there 
is no need for documentation of some of these straightforward 
procedural changes is, IMO, silly. Forming a WG to produce a document 
to discuss this is simply delaying, and delay is something we've seen 
more than enough of.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]

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