|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
One more thing that bugs me about the current WG/SG relationship. For an ECSG, if you participate in nothing else, I don’t believe you get attendance/membership credit anywhere in 802. This seems particularly unfair for people who’s work will lead to the formation of a new working group. If they do happen to miss the first meeting for some reason (and show up at the second and all future meetings) they get no credit for all their work. One more reason why I feel SGs (particularly ECSGs) should be viewed as pre-PAR WGs.
Clearly there is a balance between too much supervision and too little. The proper place for that balance may shift with the times. I think that the culture of a TG is a culture unto itself, as much as the culture unto a WG is a culture unto itself. So I reiterate that if you are going to waive everyone in at the initiation of a WG, then you should do so at the initiation of a task group as well. It is far more common that we start a TG than a WG, and the process where new members of the TG must develop their membership either during the study group phase, or afterwards using the 3 plenary rule seems to work fine.
In my mind the study group plays the part of the pre-par WG. If a WG did initiate without a PAR the only work they could do would be to hold an SG under SG rules to develop a PAR. If we are to continue with this first meeting rule, I’d rather do away with study groups, initiate the WG when we first decide we want to develop a PAR, let the WG elect it’s officers immediately, and then do the PAR. If people then want to have voting rights when the first TG for the WG begins it’s work, then they will have to participate in the PAR development anyway. Bottom line is I think if technical people really care about an activity they should show up for the PAR development. I view a SG as a pre-PAR WG (which is perhaps more consistent with SA rules), and therefore think that attendance at the SG should count toward attendance for the WG, since it my mind it is doing the work of the WG anyway. If the WG already existed (but had not PAR yet) it would have to form the study group and develop voting rights (for new people) via the SG anyway. So I don’t understand why we should treat the case of a new WG differently than that.
Bottom line is we may just have to agree to disagree. I’m open for more discussion, but so far I have not been persuaded.