Bernard,
I think your proposal is worth thinking about. The current BOF process
is very on/off in its nature. One of the problems that it is causing is that
when work is not far enough, a BOF or WG cannot be established. This
in turns leave the perception that the IETF is completely ignoring the
topic. In reality, a denied WG/BOF might mean anything ranging from
"go away with your stupid idea" to "this is very important and interesting,
but please do <X> first so that the WG can be chartered or BOF held".
We try to give the right perception, of course, but sometimes its hard to
convince people who can only observe the existence/non-existence
of an official activity.
Jari
Romascanu, Dan (Dan) kirjoitti:
*/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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf