ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Beyond conflict

2005-10-14 10:10:23
At 17:14 14/10/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On fredag, oktober 14, 2005 16:58:11 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
I think we should look at new collaboration tools, for example has
anyone tried using a wiki to maintain an issues list?
Quite a few WGs use issue trackers of various kinds.

The Global Grid Forum uses a web tool based on sourceforge
for Last Call comments (which they call Public Comment). That
of course prevents self-feeding mailstorms.

the "of course" part being that it's so cumbersome to use that folks don't check it that often, so they don't react to others' comments?
mailstorms have their positive sides....

agreed.

A few years ago we had a DNSO/GA task force to improve the working methods of this now defunct structure. One interesting extremely simple feature we discussed and I implemented positively later on in a few cases (for complex private thinking, report preparation) was the "position statement link".

The charter and the current status of intended the deliverables are documented on a single simple site with a link with all the participant pages (could be the IETF WG Page), lurkers do not need to have a page. On their page, participants maintain their own _different_ positions on the currently discussed topics (when they agree with the advancement of the deliverable, they remove their position). They can keep archives, historic, back-ground, quotes, links, etc.

The interest is that anyone entering the debate can have a full understanding of the pending issues in minutes. And the matters can be organised. So you can consider Chapter 17 only, without having to read everything.

Also, a consensus is only to reduce the differences between propositions (no need to repeat the differences ad nauseam - when you update them everyone seens it). In different groups I experimented different page formats, reporting tools, etc. From this I am sure: the concepts may support many variations, may support many different WG styles, make the difference/blocking points plain to everyone, help to agree or agree we disagree (people not documenting a position on a topic have no reason to interfere), etc. It is very near from a wi-ki but far easier to implement, and it permits everyone to be the master of his presentation (ppt, jpeg, etc.). Also, position sites can be collective. Tools to establish compared position reports can be developed, if there is a common format (can be very simple and cover only one summary block per topic on each page).

One of the most interesting (disturbing?) "feature" is that everyone can assess the competence/ignorance and humility/arrogance of every participant. This tends to reduce the debate to the people who have real experience, without preventing new suggestions. This also permits small groups to form on an issue to work a common position, without splitting the working group: the result is put online in common - through a specialised link, or to support the position of a person, etc. It also permits external guest specialists from a side aspect to comment and to be listen to. They have not to follow all the debate, just to comment on their own part. Once their presentation is agreed, the group can refer to it (or ask for more details).

Experience shown it takes time to start (new concept, it was not a real product, people must know how to maintain an HTML page, etc.). But afterwards it permits to go much faster, to rise the quality standard, etc. and also to support large period of inactivity or of separate thinking (experimentation). Also, the "it told you"s which were never told do not work. When someone discovers a yet not solved problem, he just describes it on his site. Only him can remove it. So we are sure we have a consensus. This is not the WG-Chair who orders it.

A good point is that it also simplifies multilingual common work. The entries can be crafted by participants. Explanations can be attached and reviewed if not understood. Once, I saw opponents reviewing texts of their adversaries - just to make sure they understood the objection correctly. This can be very simple, quick and rewarding (when helping editing, one understand better). Once the only mailing was to announce the updated pages (so only the organiser sent mails to the list). It could have been automated in any language. Inventing a RFC 3683 PR-action is very difficult in such a context.

for what it is worth.

jfc





_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>