Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata
Status

RESOLVED 

OutcomeApproved
Minutes Link2019 11 14 TSC Minutes

Overview of Proposal


The Working Group Task Force proposed that WGs shall be dropped and WGs transition to TSIGs. The crux of the proposal is to remove the expectation that WGs are to produce deliverables. However, given the cost associated with creating a new group type and name, it is appropriate to instead keep WGs and simply remove the deliverable component from their charter. It is worth noting that this implies that WGs will need to launch Task Forces to produce deliverables if they chose to do so.


Formal Proposal(s)

Change WGs' purpose to be about information exchange rather than production of deliverables.

Action Items

  • Type your task here, using "@" to assign to a user and "//" to select a due date

Reviewed By


6 Comments

  1. Maybe we should title this "WGs are no longer required to produce deliverables" instead?  The way it's currently written makes it sound like they aren't allowed to produce deliverables.

    1. Actually no, this is intentional. As mentioned above: "It is worth noting that this implies that WGs will need to launch Task Forces to produce deliverables if they chose to do so."

      We could relax this of course but I got from last week's discussion that some people (Christopher Ferris ?) thought it would be better to clearly separate the two types of groups in that way.

      1. Do we need to define a set of punishments / discipline schedule if a WG does produce a deliverable ?

        Suppose its by accident, will there be leniency ?

      2. Can we say something like "the goal of WGs is not to produce deliverables, but information exchange?"  If some working group waves its collective magic wand and fabulous code appears, what do we do?  I understand that we want to focus deliverable efforts to task forces, but this seems a little harsh.

  2. All right, I don't think we need to become fascists about this so I changed the proposal to hopefully better convey the intent. Thanks Hart Montgomery for the suggestion.