On 7/29/13 7:25 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > My suggestion is for a 'status' page that gives a brief summary > about the current state of the working group, ideally listing the > current, near-term vector of the work -- what's the current focus of > effort -- and major open issues. > > I'll suggest that it be updated after every meeting. > > Arguably, this sort of status statement is good to have even without > newcomers, since it forces working groups to face the question of what > progress they are and are not making. > > An exercise like this can be cast as onerous or helpful, depending > upon the surrounding organizational 'tone' we use. In a supportive > environment, the exercise is helpful. In a hostile one, not so much. > > Basically, if a wg is being diligent and candid in summarizing its > problems (as well as progress) the rest of us have an obligation to be > helpful. http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/IETF86summary
is the ops area's experiment with doing this. > > > d/ >
