Bernard,
Speaking as a participant in both the IETF and IEEE 802, there are many
things that I like in the CFI / Study Group process of IEEE. Your
proposal goes in the direction of solving one of the problems I perceive
in the IETF processes which is the lack of repeatability and
predictability (again speaking as a participant). I like it. Yet, there
are some differences:
- The five criteria in the IEEE would not apply as is. I am not sure
that 'broad market potential' should be there at all, or should be as
strong a factor as it is in the IEEE. Same with economic feasibility,
which in the IEEE often refers to the costs of hardware based
implementations
- 'Measuring interest' works differently in the IETF than in the IEEE
which is very much physical participation based, and where participants
and company votes are dully counted and registered in CFI meetings as
proof of interest.
Dan
________________________________
From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_aboba(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:52 PM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Reforming the BOF Process (was Declining the ifare bof
for Chicago)
The recent discussion on the IFARE BOF has raised more
fundamental issues
about the IETF BOF process. Rather than letting discussion
continue on the
SAAG list, it would seem better for this discussion to occur on
the IETF list.
> Speaking as a former AD, it can be a very tough call to say
yes/no to
> a BOF. Unfortunately, there is often interest, but interest is
most
> definitely not enough. There needs to be more than interest.
It should be understood that this is a feature of the IETF
process that is
not necessarily held in common with other SDOs.
For example, within IEEE 802 the initial meeting is termed a
"Call
for Interest" because the determination of interest is the major
focus;
writing a charter/PAR is not.
Assuming that sufficient interest exists, a study group is
formed, whose
sole purpose is to write a Project Authorization Request (PAR)
(equivalent of a charter), and demonstrate that the proposed
work
satisfies the "5 criteria":
1. Broad Market Potential
a. Broad sets of applicability.
b. Multiple vendors and numerous users.
c. Balanced costs
2. Compatibility with existing standards.
3. Distinct Identity.
4. Technical feasibility
a. Demonstrated system feasibility
b. Proven technology, reasonable testing
c. Confidence in reliability
5. Economic Feasibility
> There needs to be a reasonable chance of a positive,
forward-moving
> outcome.
I believe that this ascribes more predictive value to the BOF
process than
is warranted by experience. Quite a few deployed technologies
have
originated from BOFs that the IESG judged to not have a likely
"forward-moving
outcome", while many unproductive working groups arose from
successful
BOFs. The reality is that BOFs do not much have predictive
value, if only
because the BOF process does not much resemble the WG process,
so that
the success dynamics cannot easily be ascertained as a result.
> Yes, I* opinions are afforded special status. They are our
chosen
> leadership, and with leadership comes responsibility.
Responsibility
> to be sure that if the work goes forward, it is well scoped,
has a
> reasonable likelihood of success, etc. And please remember,
the IETF
> is a meritocracy. So please don't raise the "I* has special
status"
> issue as if it were some kind of unfair or biased way of doing
things.
Again, the IESG role in the BOF process represents a choice on
the part
of the IETF. It is possible to envisage other approaches that
could yield
outcomes as good or better while providing better accountability
and
transparency.
For example, by restricting the function of an initial BOF to a
determination of
interest and a decision to form/not form a study group, the
opportunities
for unfairness and bias can be reduced. Once the study group
had produced a charter and documentation of the formation
criteria, the review
of these documents could proceed with more information than is
typically
available as the result of a (potentially delayed) 2nd BOF.
Also, the
review could utilize existing procedures for ensuring
transparency and
accountability, such as an open review process and documentation
of
DISCUSS comments.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf