-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
ietf-request(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Sent: None
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Ietf Digest, Vol 16, Issue 17
Send Ietf mailing list submissions to
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
ietf-request(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
You can reach the person managing the list at
ietf-owner(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Ietf digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: project management (from Town Hall meeting)
(Henning Schulzrinne)
2. Re: project management (from Town Hall meeting) (Aki Niemi)
3. The plenary and the nomcom-term and review panel proposals
(John C Klensin)
4. Re: On standards review panel and division of work
(Spencer Dawkins)
5. Re: project management (from Town Hall meeting) (Henk Uijterwaal)
6. Re: On standards review panel and division of work
(John C Klensin)
7. Re: project management (from Town Hall meeting) (Pekka Savola)
8. Re: project management (from Town Hall meeting)
(Henning Schulzrinne)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 05:07:49 -0400
From: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs(_at_)cs(_dot_)columbia(_dot_)edu>
Subject: Re: project management (from Town Hall meeting)
To: Henk Uijterwaal <henk(_at_)ripe(_dot_)net>
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Message-ID: <42F1DAE5(_dot_)7050606(_at_)cs(_dot_)columbia(_dot_)edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I doubt that this is going to solve anything. All basic project
management
techniques assume that a project has a deadline and that the people
working
We do have deadlines: charters, and external customers (implementors,
other SDOs).
on it have some incentive to get the work done. This is not the case for
ID's: we continue working on them until there is rough consensus, no
matter
how long it takes. The authors are volunteers, if other activities pop up
and work on the ID has to be postponed, there is nothing the WG chair can
do.
This is not quite true: authors are not volunteers in the normal
soup-kitchen-volunteer sense. In most cases, authors are paid by their
companies to do the work. This is not a hobby for most contributors.
Even more classical volunteer organizations, like IEEE (the
non-standards-part) and ACM, set deadlines and have mechanisms to deal
with volunteers (true volunteers in that case) that can no longer
perform. For example, journals routinely drop editors that don't perform
their (unpaid, volunteer) duties.
This is another result of doing work with volunteers. If somebody is
interested in a topic but not in another, then there is nothing that
can stop him from working on the first topic, even if it might be
beneficial for overall progress to finish the topic first.
Part of managing for success in any "volunteer" organization is to
channel volunteer energy.
Henning
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 12:11:49 +0300
From: Aki Niemi <aki(_dot_)niemi(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com>
Subject: Re: project management (from Town Hall meeting)
To: ext Henk Uijterwaal <henk(_at_)ripe(_dot_)net>
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Message-ID: <42F1DBD5(_dot_)40705(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hi,
ext Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
At 10:05 04/08/2005, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
I would never suggest adopting a 4-year project schedule, but would
suggest a number of simple project management techniques and goals:
- As part of WG chair training, train WG chairs in basic project
management techniques and indicate that driving progress is an
important role.
I doubt that this is going to solve anything. All basic project
management
techniques assume that a project has a deadline and that the people
working
on it have some incentive to get the work done. This is not the case for
ID's: we continue working on them until there is rough consensus, no
matter
how long it takes. The authors are volunteers, if other activities pop up
and work on the ID has to be postponed, there is nothing the WG chair can
do.
I hope you're not saying I-Ds have no deadlines. Sorry, but they do.
Sure we're a voluntary organization, and technical quality is the first
order of priority. But that does *not* mean that it is OK to work on a
particular draft only six weeks per year (around the f2f meetings), or
that it's OK to have an author disappear for six months, or that each
and every crazy idea sent to the mailing list needs to be incorporated
in late stages of the work, resulting in constant feature creep.
Voluntary does not prohibit an incentives system, nor does it disallow
project managers (the WG chairs) equipped with carrots and sticks.
The real question is: how can we set realistic deadlines and get
commitment
from people to get the work done by the deadline, even if they are
interrupted.
By using the tools and conventions for WGs that Henning was proposing.
Only when we have answered this question, it makes sense to start looking
at tools to support this process.
- Avoid massive number of parallel efforts in working groups. Instead,
focus on a small number of drafts and get them out in less than a year
from draft-ietf-*-00. (They might start as draft-personal- if they are
exploratory.)
This is another result of doing work with volunteers. If somebody is
interested in a topic but not in another, then there is nothing that
can stop him from working on the first topic, even if it might be
beneficial for overall progress to finish the topic first.
I think there is a misconception here about what "volunteer" means. I've
worked in other voluntary organizations, and let me tell you, if you're
a junior basketball coach but don't show up for practice, or decide to
coach tennis unannounced for the next few months, you get replaced
pretty quickly.
Cheers,
Aki
Henk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Henk Uijterwaal Email:
henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre
http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Look here junior, don't you be so happy.
And for Heaven's sake, don't you be so sad. (Tom Verlaine)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 05:28:49 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
Subject: The plenary and the nomcom-term and review panel proposals
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Message-ID: <2F2F3DFD0C6D4703786A4AF2(_at_)7AD4D3FB4841A5E367CCF211>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Four observations on the plenary discussion of my drafts...
As I said at the end, I had not planned to come to the
microphone at all. I wanted to listen. What I heard
included...
(1) To repeat what I did say (since it was apparently hard to
hear) I see, once again, the problem that it has become
very hard to introduce a concept into this community. If one
tries to do so via a comment on a mailing list, there is never
enough detail for anyone to really evaluate it (or the message
is so long that almost no one reads it). If the concept is
presented in an I-D, then the document is torn to shreds for
not having enough detail for anyone to evaluate it. On the
other hand, if details are provided in the initial document,
even as an example to show that a plausible set of details is
possible, the community (often including especially the IESG,
immediately focuses in on the details and picks at them,
ignoring the general concept and the usually-better question of
how to adjust the concept and fill in any blanks.
This behavior has a corollary along the "we cannot handle
complexity" dimension. If one writes a single draft that covers
the several aspects of a problem, it is attacked as "too long,
too complex, and covering too many issues" and told it should be
broken up into smaller pieces. If it is broken up (the set of
issues here are now two and I have been advised to produce a
third that identifies the principles only), then people complain
that having several drafts at once is too much to deal with.
That way of handling things, especially things that some people
apparently just do not want to deal with, applies, I think, to
both process proposals and our technical work. It is not good
news if we actually want to get things done.
(2) Several comments, during and after the discussion and most
precisely framed by Spencer Dawkins, that I may have made an
incorrect assumption about transition. The text more or less
assumes that the review panel membership would be new
and the IESG membership would be left in place. Perhaps the
current IESG membership are most skilled in document review
rather than the sort of WG leadership and steering functions
that I had in mind -- the functions I think we had in the
early 1990s. If that were the case, then we should resolve the
detail of the IESG being larger than the review panel, shift
the current IESG members onto the review panel, and repopulate
the steering/coordination/management entity (probably calling it
something other than "IESG").
(3) A comment from an IESG member that the notion would probably
add work, since the document provides for documents rejected by
the review panel to cycle back through the IESG. To me, this is
one of the "sample detail" issues identified above. If the IESG
wants to be explicitly in that loop, and the community wants
that, then "back to the IESG as the submitting body" is the
right model. I had anticipated their involvement at that point
as lightweight, with the AD reviewing the comments and passing
them on to the WG, but not assuming today's role of negotiator
with the WG (or between the WG and the review panel). I think
that negotiator role, after a document goes out for IETF Last
Call, is the source of several of our problems and needs to be
eliminated.
For those who are reading this without having read the document,
please note that rejection of a document by the review panel is
intended to be A Big Deal. The document suggests a process that
would focus on getting good-quality, pre-reviewed, documents to
the review panel --with shared responsibility between the WG and
the IESG's steering/managing function for being sure that
happens-- with the review panel only organizing a final check.
If the IESG believes that being in the "return" loop would be
burdensome, then the proposal can easily be adapted to that
belief. The change would be to have the review panel return the
document directly to the WG, with the AD involved only as part
of WG management. The IESG would then be involved again only as
part of routine WG oversight and when the WG concluded that it
was ready to resubmit the document. I will make that change for
-01 unless others object.
As a particularly strong variation, one could have the review
panel return the document to the WG and then require either a
"new benchmarks" or recharter activity since "rework a rejected
document" would not be on the WG's pre-rejection charter.
Again, from my point of view, these are details that can be
sorted out and tuned if the community likes and wants the
general concept. If the community does not, there is no point
wasting the time to generate and debate those details.
(4) I heard at least one IESG member say something that sounded
suspiciously like:
"We are really busy and have all of these technical
documents to review. If you really want to discuss changes
and process proposals, we will be happy to defer action on
all of your technical documents until you come up with a
process proposal that we like".
I'm sure that was not intended. However, some reassurance
would be appropriate. It would also, IMO, be appropriate to
pay careful attention to comments (last night and earlier) that
it is probably time to come up with a process for reviewing and
approving process proposals that does not involve the IESG
other than as community members who can comment on a proposal
along with the rest of us.
Almost as a side-effect of the core changes, the review panel
proposal suggests moving sign-off on process proposals to the
IAB. Would it be useful to generate a very short I-D that does
that, and that only, as a means of moving things forward?
john
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 11:34:25 +0200
From: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer(_at_)mcsr-labs(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: On standards review panel and division of work
To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Message-ID: <001f01c598d7$b4e1ba90$c51eff56(_at_)DFNJGL21>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
Hi, Pekka (but not only Pekka),
If I understood Margaret last night, she was at least somewhat
comfortable with a hard split between area management and technical
review, so I'd like to at least ask one question...
In discussions with John Klensin, I (and I think we) both assumed that
the addition of an Standards Review Panel would mean that that the
IESG participants remained on the IESG. But now I'm wondering - if we
have a future-SRP and a future-IESG, which one of these does the
current IESG more closely resemble?
I'm trying to figure out if we're really adding a Standards Review
Panel, because the existing IESG is spending too much time on
standards review, or whether the existing IESG is spending a LOT of
time on standards review, so we're really adding an Internet
Engineering Steering Group...
Spencer
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 11:40:06 +0200
From: Henk Uijterwaal <henk(_at_)ripe(_dot_)net>
Subject: Re: project management (from Town Hall meeting)
To: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs(_at_)cs(_dot_)columbia(_dot_)edu>
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Message-ID:
<6(_dot_)2(_dot_)1(_dot_)2(_dot_)2(_dot_)20050804112939(_dot_)02cab418(_at_)localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 11:07 04/08/2005, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
I doubt that this is going to solve anything. All basic project
management
techniques assume that a project has a deadline and that the people
working
We do have deadlines: charters, and external customers (implementors,
other SDOs).
I haven't counted the number of times were deadlines were missed this
week alone with no consequences.
For example, in a WG I attended this morning, the chair asked a person
about a document he promised to write. The person answered that he'd do
this in the next month. The chair replied that he said that last time as
well. Some laughter followed, but that was the end of it.
This is not quite true: authors are not volunteers in the normal
soup-kitchen-volunteer sense. In most cases, authors are paid by their
companies to do the work.
I agree. But companies change priorities and with that the time people
can spend on ID's. In this case, there is little we can do.
I can see a solution (have get commitment from employers before assigning
work to a person) but this will require a major change in the basic way we
work.
For example, journals routinely drop editors that don't perform their
(unpaid, volunteer) duties.
Yes, but I rarely see this happen in the IETF.
Henk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Look here junior, don't you be so happy.
And for Heaven's sake, don't you be so sad. (Tom Verlaine)
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 06:09:48 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
Subject: Re: On standards review panel and division of work
To: Pekka Savola <pekkas(_at_)netcore(_dot_)fi>, ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Message-ID: <AA6E4DD2B90A16498C5F29C8(_at_)localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
--On Thursday, August 04, 2005 09:35 +0300 Pekka Savola
<pekkas(_at_)netcore(_dot_)fi> wrote:
...
I do not think this is a show-stopper though; as many details
in the proposal, things like these can be modified. In this
case, I believe the problem can be easily addressed by giving
the ADs the power to initiate the review requests to the
review panel -- and encouraging them to do so.
This would have several benefits:
* if the expectation would be that drafts would be brought
before
the full IESG only in exceptional cases, the load and
duplication
...
I don't see any disadvantages, except that if there hasn't
been sufficient cross-area review before requesting the review
panel to review, they might have to shuttle the documents back
and forth more often. This approach might also call for
IETF-wide vetting of also WG-produces
informational/experimental documents, if they would be
reviewed by fewer people, but if this would be needed, it
could be easily added later on and isn't worth considering at
this point.
See my note posted a short time ago (which was written before
seeing yours). But, yes. This is exactly the thing I was
commenting about in that note. It is, at some level, a detail.
It can be tuned in any of a number of ways. I picked one, not
quite at random. You suggest a different one above. I think we
need to decide the concept is worthwhile (I'm not sure there is
consensus on that yet), and then sort through these details.
IMO, the "I don't like that detail so the proposal is invalid
and should not be considered" approach is just not a productive
way to proceed.
john
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 13:10:17 +0300 (EEST)
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas(_at_)netcore(_dot_)fi>
Subject: Re: project management (from Town Hall meeting)
To: Henk Uijterwaal <henk(_at_)ripe(_dot_)net>
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Message-ID:
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)61(_dot_)0508041303280(_dot_)29844(_at_)netcore(_dot_)fi>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
This is another result of doing work with volunteers. If somebody is
interested in a topic but not in another, then there is nothing that
can stop him from working on the first topic, even if it might be
beneficial for overall progress to finish the topic first.
Well, at least there is a mitigation factor (in theory).
Set the maximum amount of documents that can be worked in parallel.
If folks want their own document added as a WG document, they'll have
to work on the existing documents out of the door first. (Obviously,
this is a tool WG chairs can already use; I'd certainly be interested
if the model has been executed successfully or unsuccessfully.)
This also requires that documents with ineffective editors get
raplaced reasonably quickly so there's always progress going on (and
the proposers of new work can't say, "but the existing ones aren't
going anywhere [because the editor isn't doing the job]").
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 06:17:02 -0400
From: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs(_at_)cs(_dot_)columbia(_dot_)edu>
Subject: Re: project management (from Town Hall meeting)
To: Henk Uijterwaal <henk(_at_)ripe(_dot_)net>
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Message-ID: <42F1EB1E(_dot_)80509(_at_)cs(_dot_)columbia(_dot_)edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I haven't counted the number of times were deadlines were missed this
week alone with no consequences.
For example, in a WG I attended this morning, the chair asked a person
about a document he promised to write. The person answered that he'd do
this in the next month. The chair replied that he said that last time as
well. Some laughter followed, but that was the end of it.
I would consider this a problem (cultural and otherwise), not a
desirable state of affairs. If you mean that this requires more than
just adding tools, I agree. I tend to believe the old saw that "we
manage what we measure". Currently, we have a creeping bias of low
expectations and no good way to measure if things are getting worse or
better.
In volunteer organizations, organizations that don't ask anything of
their members tend to get what they ask for. (There have been
interesting economics papers on why mainstream, low-commitment churches
in the West have had difficulties keeping members. But I digress.)
I agree. But companies change priorities and with that the time people
can spend on ID's. In this case, there is little we can do.
In extremis, WG chairs can re-assign the work to some other party or
parties. If no other party is interested in doing the work, the draft
must not be all that important after all. Forcing a do-or-die decision
avoids wasting time of all parties concerned. I suspect that this will
also trigger a discussion between employer and employee which will
magically make time available.
I can see a solution (have get commitment from employers before assigning
work to a person) but this will require a major change in the basic way we
work.
I don't see "exported" commitments as useful since they won't be
enforceable unless you add a performance bond. No, I'm not currently
suggesting performance bonds...
Yes, but I rarely see this happen in the IETF.
Maybe that's a bug, not a feature. It is currently difficult to pull the
plug since the tardy author can easily say "all other documents are
late, why pick on me?".
As a meta comment, saying that culture cannot change is the first and
most obvious sign of a dying organization. I'm not claiming that you're
claiming immutability, but I do hear variations on this in various remarks.
Henning
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
End of Ietf Digest, Vol 16, Issue 17
************************************
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf