On 6/17/07, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
> (1) Unless things have changed since I was last paying careful
> attention, the process you describe is used to adding a new
> project to an existing technical committee.
It can be used to form a new sub-group (e.g. IEEE 802.11z), or to form a
new group (e.g. IEEE 802.21).
Well, let's be really clear here. 802 is a horse of a different
color, unlike any other project IEEE has going. Unfortunately, it's
the model we are all most used to.
802 is the original project, and still exists in the form of the 802
Executive Committee. All 802 groups (802.11, 802.1, 802.3), exist as
a sub working group under 802. Some of these sub working groups have
themselves spun off sub groups of their own (802.11 TGr, 802.11 TGT,
etc.).
I've never seen the process of starting a whole new project within
IEEE; I'm not sure a study group is required, or even done.
> (2) I don't have statistics, but my impression is that most
> technical standards work in the IEEE these days (not just in
> 802, but more broadly) starts with a proposal to standardize a
> specific industry technology. Those proposals are debated and
> refined, but the assumption is that little fundamental
> engineering or design work is done in the standardization
> process.
I don't think that holds true any more. Groups such as IEEE 802.11s or 11n
are doing quite a big of engineering/design work.
> (3) Adding a study group creation process and a study group process
> to the existing opportunities for delay would not contribute to
> speeding things up. Indeed, it would do much the contrary.
It was not suggested that study group formation be required. If a first
BOF demonstrates interest as well as making progress on the charter, then
it would be best to form the WG right away. The problem happens with BOFs
that demonstrate interest, but where more time is needed to develop the
charter.
Experience shows that in this case the BOF process can drag on with no
intermediate
feedback, accountability or clear process for resolution, sometimes for
years. In some
cases, the WG took more time to be chartered than it took to complete the
work
itself!
> (4) Suppose, instead, we were to permit WGs to be set up on a provisional
> basis, with intense review after some reasonable period of time
> and cancellation if they were not performing adequately and
> producing results the community seemed to care about. This
> would combine some of the advantages of IEEE-like study groups
> with a streamlined process that focused on the one true measure
> of whether a WG could produce useful work: starting it up and
> seeing if it produced useful work.
I agree that that rather than attempting to predict whether a WG will
produce useful work, it is better to get real data by examining the WG
in action.
> Since decisions as to whether to charter a WG are somewhat
> subjective and the IESG has broad discretion, this is a change
> the IESG could institute --experimentally or permanently-- on
> its own initiative without our spending energy on changing the
> processes.
Indeed. The same is true of the "Study Group" concept -- the IESG
can charter a WG for the purpose of writing a problem statement or
refining a future charter, at its discretion.
> Its success would, however, depend on a change of
> attitude in the community: today, so much effort goes into the
> charter process because it has become almost impossible, in
> practice, to kill off a non-performing WG or to put a tight
> leach on one that is wandering in the weeds.
The IETF seems to invest most of its effort at the beginning (the BOF
process)
and at the end (IESG review). Neither investment seems to be very
effective.
At the beginning, the BOF process has been called a "blood sport"; at the
end,
a "death by a thousand cuts". I had not considered the leach analogy
before,
but perhaps there is something there ;)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
Principal Engineer
Corporate Standardization (US)
SISA
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf