RE: [wg-d] Balanced Working Groups

["Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com>]

Theresa Swinehart wrote:
>I'd like to hear responses from working group members to the note I'd sent
>out about a week ago that John Klensin had asked by forwarded to this group.

I thought John's analysis was excellent. 
For those of you who missed it, it's in the archives at:
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Archives/msg00301.html

>I see the main divides generally speaking between:
>...
>3) Design and procedure with initial proposal for vetting versus finished
>proposal for sign-off

I had always assumed that the Working Group's task was to do both. (As 
background, I'll copy John's original analysis below.) But to do it in 
stages. Prepare an initial proposal for discussion and public commentary, 
revise the proposal based on the comments, and then move that proposal 
forward toward a final product. 

Personally, I would not like to see the Working Groups supplant the GA as 
the place where public comments are considered. A draft ought to be 
prepared based on the early thinking of the WG, published for comment, 
and then revised (perhaps by others in the WG other than the original 
drafter), and then published again as revised. Depending on whether the 
changes are substantial, you might go through multiple iterations.

If the larger community sees that the commentary period is meaningful and 
that the WGs are incorporating their concerns, then we'll see less of a 
rush to join WGs than we're seeing now. 

If I had to choose between John's two models (below), I'd say that I'd 
rather see the WGs follow the "initial proposal for vetting" model. But I 
don't see why we can't do both. Propose something for discussion and then 
move it forward. The only obstacle I see is that too often the original 
drafter becomes too attached to his or her initial draft, but we might 
solve that by having a second drafting team charged with incorporating 
comments and suggested revisions.

       -- Bret

=---------------------------------------------------=
    From John Klensin's original post:
=---------------------------------------------------=

_WGs as Design/Writing/Strawman-formulation groups vs WGs and
decision groups_

Following some of the themes above, there are a few different
things one can do with a WG.  Most are variations on one of two
themes:

  * A WG's real job is to formulate tentative positions for
    review and modifications by a larger group.  This model
    starts from the recognition that large committees are
    traditionally lousy design or drafting groups, and that
    bodies larger than committees are usually worse.  With it
    (which IETF calls a "design team") there is no particular
    reason for the WG to be either open or democratic: its
    critical role is only to produce positions to which a
    different group can react.  To a considerable extent, the
    more it can be broadly-based and still function, the more
    likely it is that its proposals will be acceptable, but
    "function" is the important thing.  "Democratic paralysis"
    is a total failure.

  * A WG is where the real work gets done.  It is expected that
    the vast majority of the recommendations it produces will
    be generally acceptable.  To some extent, if the broader
    groups have to reject or alter the output of a WG, then
    there is something wrong with the system.  As an almost-
    inevitable consequence of this, the WG must have
    representation from, or a way to tap the ideas and
    positions of, all materially-concerned parties.  But, by
    that very fact, it may be harder for it to formulate
    initial positions, rather than that work out balance points
    among them, modify them, or approve or reject them.

It seems to me that much of the confusion in WG-D is that
people want WGs to serve both of these roles at the same time.
I can't tell you it is impossible, but I've never seen it work.
Either answer is plausible, but arguments about how to make the
first type of group open to everyone who might be interested
and representative of all possible opinions appear to me
--especially after reading the comments on the list-- to be a
waste of time.

Interestingly, in many organizational settings, either type of
WG going off and not being able to reach a conclusion on a
given topic is considered an answer and useful information.  If
a WG, especially of the second type, is charged with figuring
out how to do some X, and cannot agree on how to do X or even
if X is desirable, the organization has to either conclude from
that result that X should be deferred or has to have other
mechanisms for getting to a result.

=---------------------------------------------------=
=---------------------------------------------------=