At 10:55 AM 07/22/04 -0700, Aaron Falk wrote:
Perhaps we should raise the bar on what it takes to get a slot at the IETF
meeting. For example, try to come up with some objective criteria for
what deserves a 1hr slot, 2hrs, multiple, etc. This might even nudge
groups into making some additional progress ("you can't have your meeting
if you don't hit a/some milestones").
At the risk of making a statement that arguably belongs on (and which I
have made on) the problem-statement list...
IMHO, the charter of a working group is a contract-of-sorts to accomplish
something. If a working group has no future milestones, I can't imagine why
it is meeting - at minimum, it should be (IMHO) in the process of
rechartering (which is a milestone in its own right). I would like to see
working groups held to their chartered work plans, and rechartered if the
work-plan changes.
I'll name one example, but (since I'm not trying to pick on anybody,
whether AD, WG Chair, or WG, but point out something that is far too
frequently true of WGs), I will only tell you how I found them. I went to
see whether there was an obvious example of a working group that was
outside its charter. I went to www.ietf.org, clicked on "working groups",
clicked on the area at the top of the list, and clicked on the first
working group under that area. This working group has two milestones that
are past and a number that are future, and no notation of whether they have
met their milestones or not. I then clicked on the second working group in
that area, and found the following:
Done Submit ### specification as Internet-Draft.
Done Submit first Internet-Draft of ### Interoperability Protocol.
Done Submit second draft of ### specification as Internet-Draft.
Done Submit revised Internet-Draft of ### Interoperability Protocol.
Done Submit ### specification to IESG for consideration as a Proposed
Standard.
Done Submit ### Interoperability Protocol to IESG for consideration as a
Proposed Draft.
What *is* a "Proposed Draft" anyway?
Done Submit Internet-Draft (informational) on Guide to Implementors using
### Protocols
Feb 01 Hold second ### Testing on ###, ### and ###
Mar 01 Submit Internet-Draft on ### Protocol to IESG for consideration as
a Proposed Standard.
Jul 01 Request last call on Guide to ###
Jul 01 Submit Internet-Draft on Guide to ### for consideration as a
Proposed Standard
Jul 01 Submit revisions for Internet-Draft for ###, ### and ###
Jul 01 Submit revisions for Internet-Draft for ### Protocol
Jan 02 Evaluate readiness for interoperability testing of ### Protocol
Consider the dates: what is the argument for this WG meeting? Someone needs
to sit down and very specifically ask "what in the world is happening? Is
this WG moribund and in need of some merciful person to put it out of its
misery? If not, what is the real plan for its future?"
On the whole, the IESG is doing a much better job than it used to in this
area. But I will agree that working groups need to do a much better job of
managing to their objectives, and producing results. Whether that means
interim meetings or putting an end to projects that are not actually moving
forward, working groups (and therefore chairs and authors) need to take
their tasks rather more seriously than they do, and ADs need to grade them
on their track record in doing so.
If there is further comment on this topic, I would suggest it continue on
the problem-statement list.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf