ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-etal-ietf-analysis-00.txt

2002-04-16 10:50:55
On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 08:14, Dave Crocker wrote:

That other working group is already being not served.  Holding a working 
group to its milestones makes the situation more explicit.

Query to the group:  If we believe we should not hold working groups to 
their milestones, why bother to have those milestones?

Dave-

Milestones are useful not just for the when but also for the what.  In
my opinion, working group charters have their impact on the quality of
the IETF output through scoping what the working group should and
(especially) should not do.  In the charter discussions I've
participated in this is made most explicit through the specification of
a set of deliverables (e.g., protocols, recommendations, etc).  This is
of enormous benefit from a managerial standpoint in that the key players
agree a priori on what is in and out of scope and the nature of the work
to be done.  

I'd be very concerned that, if we pushed working groups to deliver
faster, the first thing we'd lose would be the review from
cross-functional experts. These folks are already  very busy but their
commentary can be of enormous value.  It may contribute to longer
development of protocols but probably reduces the mess that would result
if protocols interact poorly on the Internet (which, as I mentioned in
an earlier email, is my criteria for IETF success).

One area I think we can improve is in finding ways to do more iterations
between IETF meetings.  My observation is that many working groups
operate on a four month clock, synchronized with the next face-to-face
meeting.  I think maybe we rely too much on working group meetings to
drive the schedule and to indicate consensus so as to move to the next
task.

--aaron