ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: the ancient reorganisation question, was IETF-91 Question etc

2014-08-15 11:06:20
Hi Tom,

On Friday, August 15, 2014, t.p. wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lou Berger" <lberger(_at_)labn(_dot_)net <javascript:;>>
To: "t.p." <daedulus(_at_)btconnect(_dot_)com <javascript:;>>
Cc: "IETF Discussion Mailing List" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <javascript:;>>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 1:06 PM
On 8/15/2014 7:04 AM, t.p. wrote:
Alia

What I saw you say was
"One driver for this reorganization is to get to "right-size" working
groups
that are large
enough to have critical mass and not so large as to have poor
signal-to-noise for participants or suffer from disengagement."

Trouble is, while there are some WG in the IETF that suffer from this,
arguably the list we are on now, I would not place any of the Routing
WG
in that category.  Historically, MPLS would have been in the days of
MPLS-TP but those days are long gone so unless and until another SDO
wants to crank up the volume on a Routing WG, I fail to see it as
justification for a reorganisation.

And yes, I think that this is an IETF matter, not just one for a
Routing
list.


It is both IETF matter and IETF area matter. However, the WG community with
their chair should always find solutions that follow the IETF vision (not
only the industry sector vision).




Tom,
    Which "this" are you referring to:
disengagement/signal-to-noise/bystanders/tourists/etc., the rational for
the routing are reorganization, or the reorganization as a whole?

<tp>
Lou

I was referring back to all of the quote I gave from Alia.  I am aware
of Alia's stated objectives, to whit,

"improving the quality, speed, and
experience of getting work done in the IETF Routing Area. "


The routing area should think about not  only work done but also the work
coming into each WG (i.e adopted work by WG). I know one WG in this
area having many work adopted while the WG size is small so
reviews/analysis are with low quality. I suggest that IETF focus on adopted
New work to match each WG ability in terms of achieving its previous
work milestones. As considering work flow control with priority and
time management.


but then suffer from a disconnect when I read about reorganising the
WGs.

On the routing-discussion list, the focus seemed to be on changing the
MPLS WG which, to me, seems not to need any serious change at this point
in time.


The focus is to change our work in IETF becoming more about functions than
about protocols. The internet function design is more important than
sticking our internet to protocols which may be old and not interoperable.


   It was stated that there is insufficient time at an IETF
meeting for all those who wanted to present their I-Ds to MPLS to
present to their I-Ds; other Areas solve this by not presenting I-Ds,
rather than reorganising:-)


We need to help guide new working methods and guide new I-Ds coming in.
That may be done by reorganising each IETF area.


As a chair in a different context, I have reorganised, and seen the
benefits thereof happen, but I have also worked in an environment where
the culture was to reorganise every year, and really reorganise every
few years - chaos, I would call that.  So, I am sceptical that any
benefits will accrue in this case.


In IETF WGs there are allowance for no work flow control/analysis (which
that management method does not prevent chaos.) However, Reorganise
IETF community/area is good each five years. It can become a chaos if done
frequently and even if the management have high performance.

AB







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