(catching up after a few days in meetings, but it will
still take a while to read everything)
Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian,
1. Apparently you missed the extended, public exchanges about these
issues, over the last 3 years...
Here's a quick list of things that have been done. It's written in
somewhat high level terms, but there is substance behind each of these
items. It doesn't mean that we're done or that we're complacent, but
accusing ourselves of inaction is plain wrong.
First point - I unaccountably forget to mention that we agreed on
and published an IETF Mission Statement (RFC 3935). That was a direct
response to the first "root problem" described in RFC 3774.
I did not say there had been no activity. I said that we had done nothing
about the issues currently under discussion.
So i will ask you and everyone else to consider your list with respect to
quality, timeliness and relevance.
Most of the actions you cite may affect some of the problematic aspects of
timeliness... sometimes. But that is all.
Here's an exercise you might want to consider: Take the list in the Problems
RFC and try to reconcile your list against its.
I do intend to go through that RFC to look for issues that haven't been
addressed.
If people would stop submitting drafts for publication and sending technical
email, I might get a chance to do so. But actually, I do prefer to give
priority to the IETF's work product rather than to metawork.
Tools team ...
Many operational details of document review process ...
These two are about better administration. Improving administrative process
is fine, but has nothing to do with problems in the "semantics" of the
process.
It does not affect quality or relevance. And it does not do much about
timeliness, in terms of making working groups go faster, reducing
inappropriateintentional blocks by ADs, or any of the things that are the meat
of IETF work.
I disagree. Removing artefacts makes it much easier to look at essentials.
We work now with very convenient hyperlinked agendas, ballots and comments
available on line, etc. On the few occasions when I've had to go back to
more primitive methods, I have found it very distracting and much harder
to quickly and fairly review material. Better tools improve quality
and timeliness. For relevance, see below.
and the General Area review team are operational.
And since it is carefully targeted for the END of the working group effort,
how will this improve quality, timeliness and relevance?
Even late reviews can improve quality, and speaking for myself, their
availability
makes it much less likely that I will defer a ballot, so they improve
timeliness. I'm not really sure on balance what you mean by relevance.
Relevance to what? Judged by who?
But I, Dave and ICAR blew the early review issue so far.)
Since this was an effort directly targeting quality and timeliness -- and
especially since early reviews seem to have succeeded at gaining IETF rough
consensus as a Good Thing to do -- do you have an theory about the failure to
get this going, or better still, how to get it to succeed?
I think the answer will be baby steps - even with ICAR's modest goals,
it seemed that we couldn't achieve liftoff. The IESG is thinking about
one baby step (pls wait until the notes from our retreat come out).
Education team in place to continuously educate leaders and participants
And you should note that I cited that elsewhere in the thread.
Whether the actual content of the training is likely to have any impact on
quality, timeliness and relevance is worth assessing. Yes, it ought to, but
how are we going to figure out whether it does?
Very hard. But the EDU team is not complacent either.
Regular reviews of RFC Editor and IANA performance in place...
New procedures for liaison handling defined...
Administrative support unit being created by ISOC...
And you think these affect core issues of IETF utility to the Internet
community?
Yes. The fact that we are slow in getting RFCs out or in making routine
parameter assignments is damaging to the IETF because it makes our users
(implementers and other standards bodies) unhappy. Efficient handling
of liaisons from other bodies is also very important lubrication for the
whole community. And the admin support is tremendously important - partly
to make sure that meetings, mailing lists and document approvals continue to
happen, and partly to free up enough time for *me* to do my job as Chair
and worry about the things you want me to worry about. My personal estimate
is that about 50% of the issues on my current issues list will be
handed off to the IAD when (s)he is up and running.
You think that these changes will have any effect at all on better IETF
participation or producing timely specifications of better quality and
relevance?
Please explain how.
Again, relevance is in the eye of the beholder. My quick answer on relevance
is what it's always been - the most important single action we ever take
is chartering a new WG. If we blow that, we risk doing irrelevant work. The
other part of the answer is that it's usually the market that tells us
afterwards what was relevant. But note, the IESG just spent two days
in meetings at the ITU - largely to understand *relevant* requirements from
that community.
So, I think improving operational tools and taking admin burdens away from
the engineering leadership will help us significantly by giving us more
time to think carefully about what work to charter (which directly
impacts participation) and to make the engineering parts of our process
work better.
However, we depend tremendously on skilful and dedicated WG chairs and
participants. Without them, no process and no administration will
succeed.
You might consider using the Problems RFC as a reference guide for directing
such an assessment.
Proposals for upgrading/streamlining standards track in discussion (i.e.
newtrk and specifically the ISD proposal, but there's certainly more to do
in newtrk)
Another derailed activity. Another activity that has nothing to do with
quality, timeliness or relevance.
Go ahead, explain how it does.
John Klensin answered this one.
Explain how current document labeling practises hurt the IETF's utility to the
Internet community.
Actually, RFC 3774 dinged the 3 stage standards process, not me.
Explain how the utility of the IETF to the community will be improved by our
fixing this.
Indeed, this something the IESG also discussed in its retreat; and you've
seem John's answer.
Brian, we need to distinguish activity from progress.
Now there's a truism.
We need to look for the issues that are at the core of the IETF's
problems.
As I said, in the last 3+ years, we have mostly chosen not to do
that.
On the contrary, we're working through them. But personally I'm not
panicking, nor am I complacent.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf