Subject: Re: charter consistency

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 13:32:23 +0200

Hi Andy!
A guideline sounds like a good idea - if you want to hold the pen for a
while, it could be fun to get a little further along by discussing on the
wgchairs list - you know what about charters has helped you as chairs
getting your WGs to move forward!

One more section below.....

--On tirsdag, september 03, 2002 22:56:25 -0700 Andy Bierman
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I was just reading the charters of several WGs and I noticed
> that there is virtually no consistency across WG charter pages,
> other than the basic format.  Some WGs go into significant
> detail explaining the rationale and scope of each deliverable,
> and some WGs give a 1 line description instead.  Some WGs
> have lots of milestones defined (at least 2 per deliverable)
> and others barely have anything in this very important section.
>
> It would be nice if there was some consistency across these documents.
> I think some guidelines should be written and posted to the WG Chairs
> WEB site.  Here's an attempt to start the list:
>
>   - overall rationale and scope of the WG:
>     At least 1 paragraph explaining why the WG exists and why it's
>     different than all other WGs, which could be viewed as a
>     mission statement for the WG.
>
>   - description of each work item
>     At least 1 paragraph explaining why the WG is addressing the work
>     item and explaining the scope, goals, and non-goals of the work
>
>   - description of each deliverable
>     For each deliverable for a given work item, at least 1 paragraph
>     explaining the scope, goals, and non-goals of the deliverable

inserted section that I've seen a lot of recently:

     - worry topics that the group will have to address
       (standard list is security, complexity, interactions with
       other activities/groups/organizations, internationalization,
       congestion control, manageabilty.... lots of which can get far more
       specific in a specific charter)
>
>   - milestones for each deliverable
>     - 1 for the expected date WG Last Call starts
>     - 1 for the expected date document is completed and handed off
>       to the IESG
>     (This is a minimum baseline -- WGs should list other milestones
>      as needed.)
>
> Andy
>
>
>

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 10:25:41 -0700

> WEB site.  Here's an attempt to start the list:

I agree with the other comments that the utility of this is to provide
guidance when appropriate.  This could be very helpful for, e.g., new
chairs.  However, mandating a specific format is probably needlessly
restrictive.

>     mission statement for the WG.

I've found that clear statements of what is *out of scope* to be quite
valuable in beating back distractions and known bad ideas.

>     - 1 for the expected date document is completed and handed off

I'd like to echo the comment that better document milestones would be
for first draft and last call.  If last call drags out it's probably
because there is valuable discussion.  This, IMO, is a legitimate and
valuable delay.  The delays to worry about are when there is no
traffic on list on a particular topic for a long period.

--aaron

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 11:29:03 -0700

At 08:43 AM 9/4/2002 -0400, Edward Lewis wrote:
>At 10:56 PM -0700 9/3/02, Andy Bierman wrote:
>I'm not sure that consistency is an important goal.  There are many kinds of WG's, some need more detailed guidelines and others less. That's part of the fluidity in structure needed to address technical issues - which themselves come in different shapes and sizes.

One purpose of the charter is accountability to the IESG.
The lower the quality and specificity of the charter, the
easier it is for the WG to ignore the charter and do whatever they
want, and get it done whenever they want.

>Your suggestions are good ideas though, but calling for a "mission statement?"  Respectively I ask, have you spent too much time in a cubicle sir? ;)

A mission statement is the wrong term. It would be nice for anybody
(not familiar with the WG) to be able to understand what that WG is 
supposed to be working on.  I've seen lots of WGs that think they
should be working on stuff already covered by the charters of other WGs.

>PS - I'd be happy if WG chairs read their charter and updated milestones roughly monthly. ;)  I have a few two-months past due milestones myself...
>
>>
>...
>...
>...
>...
>-- 
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
>ARIN Research Engineer

Andy

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:26:50 -0400

>want, and get it done whenever they want.

Oh, yeah, I agree with that.  As both a chair and a participant, I've 
relied on the charter's words.  But the original comment was that 
charters should be consistent.  I just don't link consistency with 
quality.