Re: Task Force Model

My only concern about this proposal is the implication that TAG task forces 
or committees would be something new.

In fact, the TAG has kicked off both formal and informal task forces for 
many years when it deemed them useful. Typically the TAG would ask non-TAG 
members to participate, and at least one effort was led by a non-TAG member 
(Norm Walsh, who in fact was at the time a former TAG member). I recall 
Jeni Tennison leading a very successful task force on an issue that 
involved some controversy a few years ago. I forget the topic but as I 
recall it was one of the more productive things we did that year.

So, I think it's often a good idea, but it's not a new one. Our experience 
with it has been about what you'd expect IMO: when the topic is suitable 
and the chosen membership motivated and willing to work together, the 
results have been good.

Noah

On 10/27/2014 6:00 PM, ashok malhotra wrote:
> This is a good idea!  Would the TAG appoint the task force?
> My guess is they would look for volunteers.
>
> We have often complained that the TAG does not get security
> experts so, although there has been a desire to dig deeper into
> security issues, this has not happened.  With the task force model
> the TAG could appoint a group of people to write a white paper
> or finding on some aspect of security.
>
> Provided, of course, that they could get enough qualified volunteers :-)
>
> All the best, Ashok
>
> On 10/27/2014 4:56 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>> I mentioned this at the last f2f, and I wanted to reiterate it incase it
>> gets lost as I've had a number of conversations and I think that a lot of
>> people think it's a compelling idea...
>>
>> The formal TAG being a small group has a lot of advantages, and we want
>> those to be 'real people' too - and generally speaking - in order to get
>> elected, you have to be involved in things.  This means that the # of
>> person hours that can be spent are sort of inadequate in many cases to
>> get the broad focus we want.   Similarly, we have rules which, for good
>> or bad are the rules we have now, and they limit us to one person per
>> org.  All of this means that we're probably not getting "the most" out of
>> it that we could, so I have a suggestion:
>>
>> Adopt a model in TAG where you make use of appointing qualified
>> individuals to a task force with a limited scope. If the neutrally
>> elected TAG appointed someone to a task force, this has enough
>> "credibility" that employers might be willing to pay, it could help
>> stretch resources and work within existing constraints and get a lot more
>> done.  The actual details could be further determined, but generally
>> speaking a task force could help the TAG understand things at deeper
>> levels without getting bogged down, they could make proposals or
>> recommendations, and generally help align things more efficiently.
>>
>> --
>> Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com <http://hitchjs.com/>
>

Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2014 02:58:53 UTC