Re: Quality Control and that nasty A word (was: Re: [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair) roles - MPOWR WG proposal)

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

James,

>> A very serious problem with trying to assign responsibility to the Chair
>> for quality, and the like, is that it _removes_ responsibility away from
>> the rest of the working group.
JK> This presumes that the motivations of the WG are to not produce a quality
JK> spec.


Sorry, no.  It presumes nothing of the sort.

It simply uses the observation that explicitly assigning responsibility
to one agent serves to imply that other agents do not have the
responsibility. This is a pretty well-studied psychological phenomenon.

So, consider the difference between saying that the chair is responsible
for quality and timeliness, versus saying that the working group is
responsible for quality and timeliness and the chair is responsible for
facilitating the working group's fulfillment of its responsibility.


JK> While this may sometimes be the case,

It must _never_ be the case.

If the working group is not responsible, then who the heck is the work
for? This is another example of how the IETF differs from a regular
product company. The people producing a specification must be
representative of the community that will use it.


JK> Your pithy formulation of "review early, review often" is relevant here. The
JK> WG needs to be responsible for quality, the WG chair needs to be responsible
JK> to make sure that is carried through

No.  The working group needs to be responsible for it.  The chair needs
to coordinate/facilitate getting it done.  If the working group does not
own that responsibility, then it ultimately does not own the work of the
working group.


JK> As mentioned earlier, new proposed WG charters are starting to have
JK> quality assurance plans. Suppose the IESG were to require that a
JK> charter contain a QA plan before the charter is approved. Thus, the
JK> WG is taking responsibility for quality by proposing the QA plan,

I like that. I suspect its main benefit will be to force the working
group to think about QA and to be explicit in the commitment to
achieving it.

The nice thing about your suggestion is that it imposes a basic
requirement and lets the proto-working group participants figure out how
to achieve it. That's a very IETF style of solving things.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:[phone]>


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