improving WG operation (was Re: Voting (again))
2005-04-28 06:17:54
On Apr 28, 2005, at 2:12 AM, John Loughney wrote:
Keith,
You've raised these points, over a number of years, but I wonder if it
would be useful to explore implications of some of your comments:
2. IESG's scaling problems are a direct result of low-quality output
from working groups, and we can't do much to address that problem
by changing how IESG works.
3. I don't think we can make IESG significantly larger, I don't think
we can dispense with final document review and keep document quality
up, and I don't think that additional reviewers can signficantly
relieve IESG of the need to do final review. I do think that
additional reviewers could be very valuable in giving WGs feedback
from
early drafts, keeping them on the right track, and keeping IESG
informed about the status of the WGs. I also think that a document
that has enjoyed such review and feedback throughout its life cycle
will be much easier for IESG to review, and that (without any changes
to IESG's organization or process) it will be harder for IESG to
reject
such documents without sound technical justification.
Here, in the Problem WG and other places, you've raise the point that
increasing the IESG probably won't help. You've implied that we
probably have too many working groups and too many drafts in the
working groups. The implications of these are that the IETF has too
much work in too many areas to be effective.
I believe the IETF could perhaps take on more work if it improved the
process by which working groups operate. This would lessen IESG's
burden by giving them better documents to work with; it might also
reduce the average duration of a WG, making more room for others. The
industry wouldn't mind that either. One of the problems that some WGs
have is that they take on too many drafts, which both hinders the
ability of the working group to finish its more important work and
imposes additional burdens on IESG.
I also think that IETF could use its resources more effectively if it
exercised more care about which working groups it chartered. For
instance, IMHO we've wasted a lot of effort trying to come up with
short-term workarounds for NATs, without any of them providing a
migration path away from NATs.
If I understand some of Dave's and John K's comments, they are willing
to entertain thoughts on how to do things better (& differently) in
order to ensure that the IETF remains relevant.
As am I. But I would like to see attention focused on working group
operation, which I believe is our biggest source of problems.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- RE: Voting (again), (continued)
- RE: Voting (again), Fleischman, Eric
- RE: Voting (again), Bob Braden
- RE: Voting (again), Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: Voting (again), Noel Chiappa
- Re: Re: Voting (again), John Loughney
- Re: improving WG operation, Keith Moore
- Re: improving WG operation, John C Klensin
|
|
|