Re: WG guidelines DRAFT!

[[e-mail]]

  >I'm very much in favor of this "dormancy" concept.  Current practice in
  >the network manageemnt area seems to be to terminate the working group
  >after IESG acceptance of a document, whether at Proposed, Draft, or
  >Standard status has been reached. The idea is that "if it needs to be
  >fixed we'll revive the working group."
  >
  >I think the normal expectation should be that the WG is shepherding the
  >document from inception to Full Standard status.
  >
  >Fred

Right, but that will probably not be accomplished by allowing "dormant"
working groups.  Rather it should be a WG's job to finish its whole
project, including carrying a standard to its the final fate if that's
what it's working on.  It's perfectly all right for a working group not
to meet at some particular WG if, say, it is busy with implementation
and so has no new business -- that doesn't make it dormant.

"Dormant" groups are just so neither-here-nor-there.  I think it's more
likely that you will be able to create a new version of a working group
(with some new workers) to do the follow-on work if necessary, than it
is that you will get previous members of a now dormant working group to
immediately come forth to do so.

However, again it's best if the WG is given the entire job in the first
place and stays active (although not necessarily meeting, perhaps just
*working*, of all things) until it is done.

							Scott