ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: survey on Friday IETF sessions

2004-07-22 18:26:54
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