Re: Updated charter proposal

On Jun 5, 2012, at 10:56 , Adam Barth wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Wonsuk Lee <wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com> wrote:
>> I understand. but I am confused because some items are classified to Phase 2
>> and some items are removed from charter. I think meaning of removing is
>> quite different with classification of Phase 2. I think it would be better
>> to classify these as the phase 2 items instead of removing. What do you
>> think?
> 
> The difference between listing a deliverable in Phase 2 and removing
> it from the charter is that the working group will be able to work on
> Phase 2 deliverables without re-chartering but working on deliverables
> that have been removed will require re-chartering.
> 
> In practice, there isn't much of a difference between the two since
> it's unlikely that we'll be able to actually finish all the
> deliverables in the current draft in two years, when we're supposed to
> re-charter anyway.

In fact it does make a big difference: by keeping them in phase 2 when we get there we can decide which ones to work on in the broader list; by removing them we are making the decision now not to work on them for two years.

I simply don't think we have that kind of visibility. Just because the group won't get to all drafts doesn't mean that we should decide now which ones will be the group's priority one year from now, with experience and a dynamic in place.

>  The main difference is that the more deliverables
> we list in the charter, the harder the chairs will need to work to
> keep the group focused and productive.

That chairs will may need to work hard is the chairs' problem — not ours ;-)

More seriously: that's a red herring. Groups have a natural tendency to stay inside of their bandwidth and ability to focus.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 13:04:23 UTC