Subject: WG Quality Processes WG

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 22:05:24 -0400

In particular, the process document currently indicates
that we should start a WG to improve WG Quality Processes,
as described below.

So, do people think we need a WG like this?  If so, does
it make sense to hold a BOF in Vienna?  I'm happy to do
some leg work (write up the indicated process in more
detail, and propose a couple of improvements to consider)
if people think that this is a reasonable way to proceed.

If not, what process should we use to improve the quality
of WG output?

Margaret

---

5.1.1   Suggestions to Improve WG Quality Processes

     A working group should be formed in the General Area of the IETF to
     oversee improvements to the quality processes used in IETF WGs, and
     to increase the effectiveness of IETF reviews at all levels.  This
     group should take an experimental, iterative approach to these
     improvements:

          - Identify and prioritize a set of promising proposals for
            improvement.
          - Figure out what each proposal is trying to improve (in
            measurable terms) and define a metric to measure performance
            in that area.
          - Determine the current level of performance against the
            defined metric.
          - Institute each change in a few representative WGs (on a
            volunteer basis).
          - Measure the results to determine if each change was
            successful.
          - Make successful changes available IETF-wide, by publishing
            them in BCP RFCs.
          - As necessary, train WG chairs and other participants on the
            how to implement the successful improvements in their WGs.
          - Repeat as necessary.

     A great deal of efficiency and synergy can be achieved by adopting
     common processes and tools throughout an organization.  However, it
     is a strength of the IETF that WG chairs are given a great deal of
     latitude to choose their own processes and tools, based on the size
     and nature of their WGs.  So, in general, processes and tools
     should be made available to WGs and WG chairs, not forced upon
     them.