Re: [81attendees] casual attendees & WG process

[Dae Young KIM <[e-mail]>]

Maybe, you're more talking about the management skill of WG chairs. Open and
loose decision-making process has long or once been regarded as the winning
side of IETF.

If consensus is high enough that it may not be anymore, then perhaps it's
time someone raise a high flag to change IETF.

Other SDOs have their own operational methods which work on their own way;
IEEE, ISO, and ITU-T, etc. I'm not sure whether people or you're thinking of
a change towards the line of one of these.... perhaps, not.

With the way of IETF is running, the unfortunate situation might not be
helped.

Or you might want to propose to process only drafts sanctioned by the chairs
and let only those names on such drafts enter the room.

But without changing the rule in that way or the other, you cannot blame
those entering the room and sitting their for hours and, to your eyes,
wasting/killing their time and only disrupting the real work.

If they are not as dumb and silly as you might think, they might have their
own reason to sit there for hours in usually uncomfortable chairs.

Pity that you have to live with so many non-sense tourists.


On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Curtis Villamizar <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>  It is a different topic.  That is why I changed the subject line.****
>
> ** **
>
> I don’t think this is an IETF governance issue.  In some WGs there needs to
> either be a filter (WG interest) or a lot more time allocated.  MPLS for
> example had mostly 10 minute slots and 4 hours (I think) of total meeting.
> With 6 hours, at least the presentations would be 15 minutes on average.
> Also if there was no interest at a prior meeting and not much has changed,
> then no time slot or a very short one or a Friday slot.  This would be up to
> the MPLS chairs.****
>
> ** **
>
> The routing area could also make use of Friday.  We had some overlap
> problem trying to squeeze into Monday first thing to Thursday.  Only roll
> was on Friday and it seemed like that WG might be shutting down.****
>
> ** **
>
> BTW – there didn’t seem to be a general comment session in the routing area
> open meeting, only a discussion of the paper on power optimization.
> Otherwise this could have been brought up (again).****
>
> ** **
>
> Curtis****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Dae
> Young KIM
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 09, 2011 8:31 AM
> *To:* Curtis Villamizar
> *Cc:* Yoav Nir; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [81attendees] casual attendees & WG process****
>
> ** **
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Curtis Villamizar <
> [e-mail]> wrote:****
>
> Before asking any question the WG chairs should ask "how many people read
> or at least thoroughly skimmed through this document prior to the meeting
> such that they understand what it contains".  Then do the "favor/opposed"
> polling.
>
> One of the problems with some of the WGs is too many junk drafts.  It seems
> like a number of authors just want to get their name on a WG draft or RFC so
> that they can cite it on their resume.  In at least one case an employer was
> rewarding employees for submitting a draft and having it presented and the
> result was a lot of junk drafts from that company.  This was
> counterproductive to the IETF WGs in which this was occurring.
>
> The process used to be more streamlined because a small group of people
> would commit to deploy a simple protocol or extension on a significant
> provider network, a small set of people would agree to implement it, and the
> WG would provide a venue for open discussion.  In a number of WGs there are
> authors who persistently promote drafts with no provider or vendor interest
> or negative expressions of interest.
>
> We have lost touch with the "running code" part of "rough consensus and
> running code" and we may not be doing well on the "rough consensus" part
> either.  We are headed toward the design by committee and voting methods
> used by other SDO along with including every half thought out feature anyone
> imagined during the process and no implementations.  This leads to protocols
> that don't work with features that no one has ever implemented or where no
> one has ever succeeded in getting to interoperate among vendors.
>
> Curtis****
>
>
> You do have a point here, but this is far stretched off the topic of the
> thread on how to select venues and that with diversity.
>
> I think you're raising a more fundamental issue of the
> governance/operational structure of IETF.
>
> If your elite core group want to do work in a more cozy environment, you'd
> better redefine the membership of IETF and scrutinize the applicants to each
> meeting to filter out non-core members.
>
> Is this what people want? Or is this what you ask the leadership to change
> the IETF to?
>  ****
>
> --
> DY****
>



-- 
DY