--On Friday, 29 April, 2005 12:54 +0300 Jari Arkko
<jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net> wrote:
...
Another component that affects IETF's output a lot
is pre-WG time. This is harder to measure, as we don't
have an easy metric for the world-has-a-problem to ietf-
has-a-wg time.
Yes. And see below
I tend to agree with John C that the IESG shares a
part of the responsibility for the good or bad WG operation.
But I don't actually don't think IESG is that visible during
the
normal operations of a WG. This may again by just my
perception, but the chairs get a lot of freedom and
responsibility for managing the group.
They do indeed. But the choice of how much freedom and
responsibility they get is an AD decision. For example, those
who believe strongly in the value of benchmarks would argue
that, if a WG is seriously overdue on commitments, the WG and
Chair should find themselves on an extremely short leash if not
just shut down. By contrast, WGs that are working well, at
least by that measure, should be left to work in whatever ways
they are working.
But where IESG and IAB have most effect is pre-WG time,
the scope and even the existence of the group. I feel
this is an area that affects perhaps most what will happen
later. If we allow things to be taken up too early, we end
up in having research results that may or may not be taken
into use. If we resist the creation of a WG too long, the
world moves on and creates other solutions or vendor
specific solutions are used. If the right problems are
chosen, we have interested contributors. If the wrong
problems are chosen, progress will be slow and on the
shoulders of one or two individuals. Etc. Sometimes
we do well here. Sometimes we don't, and I have personal
experiences from at least two cases where we really
blew it for no good reason.
I think this analysis is just right. But I'd make a suggestion
for you and others to think about.
We've had a long tradition of WGs saying "you chartered us, we
did a lot of work, and therefore we are entitled to have
whatever we produce made a standard". Such groups are usually
problematic. Many of the worst examples of thing that Keith
(and I) believe the IESG needs to stop come out of WGs who, when
they stop being able to justify their work on a technical
quality basis, make just that argument. Sometimes the IESG has
been better at pushing back than others, but pushing back is
rarely a rewarding activity: the WG participants get mad and no
one else seems to care, certain not enough to utter supporting
words.
Now, if we take the IETF down the path that you attribute to
Keith...
Keith, you have been advocating a model where the IETF
would be stricter in allowing what work be taken up, in
order to ensure that we can actually deliver.
then the review and WG approval process will tend to get ever
longer as we try harder and harder to be sure that no WG that
will fail to produce good results ever gets into the system. I
suggest that is madness, but it is also our only choice unless
we strongly encourage the IESG, and individual ADs, to adopt a
different path. "Encourage" here means both extensive kind
words and signs of approval when the do the right thing and loud
complaints to the nomcom and maybe even recall petitions when
they don't.
What is that different path? I don't suggest that we should do
it for all cases, or even most cases, but the problem with these
pre-WG review and charter processes is that sometimes we get to
the point of diminishing returns in which a lot more marginal
time doesn't really make a better charter or better odds of
timely and high-quality success. For those situations, as with
standards, we need to know where to stop. For standards, part
of our stopping mechanism is to say "no convergence,
experimental" (a mechanism we may not be using enough of late,
but...) or "good enough for now, Proposed" (doing that
effectively may require other changes of attitude). We may need
a way to have an "experimental" or "probationary" WG: to say to
a group "we don't have much confidence in this, but you are
welcome to try to run with it and prove us wrong... you get a
fixed amount of time, after which the assumption is that we are
going to shut you down unless you have produced enough useful
results to justify rechartering".
But, again, to even think about that, the IESG is going to need
a lot of support and bottom-up direction. I don't know what
would happen if a group, after some months of negotiation, would
say to the IESG "look, we think we can do this, give us nine
months to produce a product that will pass standards review and,
if we can't do it, we will voluntarily shut down". But it is
certainly an experiment I'd like to see and, if someone tries it
and the IESG says "no, we really like negotiating future
details", I hope that is reported on this list, with names. If
we continue on the path in which shutting down a WG that wants
to continue produces nothing but abuse for the relevant ADs,
then we are dooming ourselves to long, probably ever-longer,
charter and WG negotiation processes.
And, yes, I agree that is part of the problem that is worth
trying to fix.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf