On 12/26/14 8:52 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
There are a few things we can do. Some things that I've been trying to
do in Routing include:
a) discouragement of progressing many use-case and requirements drafts.
We had drifted towards having WGs producing some to help
articulate what
needed to be done - but then more and more appear and only some
actually provide more useful feedback to the architecture or
protocol. I
would rather see WGs produce things that can be implemented with the
necessary context than spend years working on use-cases and
requirements.
I'm past the waterfall model of software development.
b) Encourage WG chairs to think about the need for ACTIVE consensus rather
than passive. If there isn't the enthusiasm to review and improve
a draft or
implement it, then does it really need to be an RFC?
c) Better and early cross-WG review once a draft is adopted as a WG draft.
Well-written drafts without serious issues are much faster to
manage, review,
and progress.
d) Be willing to let WGs fail - by also letting them just get on with
doing solutions.
These are all things I'd love to see implemented across the
organization, as well as raising the bar on BOFs - I've seen
some ADs put a massive amount of effort into BOFs that are
held around ideas that aren't fully-formed (it's not necessarily
that they're bad ideas, but rather the problem is that the
proposals are awfully immature).
I've been trying to decide what I think of the proposed
reorganization and I guess I'm neutral on it - it seems that
the workload problem isn't necessarily going to go away with
a reorganization, but that the two problems (structural
efficiency and manageable workload) would need to be
tackled in parallel. I think Alia's list is a good start
on the workload issue.
Melinda