Re: [Anima] Alissa Cooper's Block on charter-ietf-anima-01-05: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

[Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Alissa,

I have made a new version (2.0.9) according to your latest feedback. I have made the below change and deleted the only "including but not limited to” in the previous 2.0.8 version.

OLD: The indicative scope of possible work items includes:

NEW: The scope of possible work items are (additional works are subject to extra approval from the responsible AD):

The latest change has been upload on wiki

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/anima/wiki/Recharter2019

Many thanks and best regards,

Sheng

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 9:23 PM
> To: Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>; IESG <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Anima] Alissa Cooper's Block on charter-ietf-anima-01-05: (with
> BLOCK and COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Sheng,
> 
> > On Jul 3, 2019, at 10:39 AM, Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Alissa,
> >
> > Thanks for your kindly response. I have made a new version (2.0.8) according to
> your feedback. Explanation in lines below.
> >
> > Please see https://trac.ietf.org/trac/anima/wiki/Recharter2019
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 5:13 AM
> >> To: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [Anima] Alissa Cooper's Block on
> >> charter-ietf-anima-01-05: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I’ve been discussing this on my weekly call with the OPS ADs for the
> >> last couple of weeks and based on the call that we had earlier today
> >> my understanding is that now would be a good time to re-review.
> >>
> >> Regarding this text: "New work items will be adopted by the WG only
> >> if their contributors target them to enter WG last call within a
> >> number of IETF meeting cycles agreed by the AD.”
> >>
> >> I still don’t get this. It is a very common case that contributors
> >> think their drafts are going to get through to WGLC in X cycles, and
> >> then they end up taking 2X or 10X because some new person wanders
> >> into the WG or some other work starts up in another WG that has an
> >> intersection with the work or someone changes jobs or any manner of
> >> other things. The WG needs milestones with dates, preferably at the point of
> approving the re-charter.
> >> Those might be missed too, but there might as well not be two sets of
> >> markers laid down that are potentially going to be missed rather than one set.
> >
> > I have just deleted the sentence. It's something the chairs can do during the
> WG management process. We tried to give draft owners some pressure not to
> be too slow by adding these text. I do agree this should not be so rigid as these
> text. So, let's take it out and the chairs will monitor the progress of WG drafts
> closely.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> >
> >> Regarding the “indicative scope of possible work items” — this
> >> doesn’t address my concern about the WG’s scope. This charter is in
> >> contrast to the current ANIMA charter, which says: "The initial set
> >> of work items is limited to the above list to stay focused and avoid
> >> 'boiling the ocean’.” I don’t see the rationale for not carrying that
> >> forward to the next set of specific work items where WG participants
> >> have demonstrated interest and intent to carry the work forward. If
> >> that is the list of initial milestone topics listed, then limiting to that makes
> sense to me.
> >
> > I have added a specific list of work items into the initial milestone list.
> >
> > Obviously, this initial milestone list does NOT cover all the topics
> > that WG participants have showed interests and willingness to work on.
> > The purpose to have this description of "indicative scope of possible
> > work items” are actually two: A, limit the potential work items not to
> > be too wide
> 
> I think my disconnect here is that the list doesn’t actually limit the WG’s scope
> because it uses the language “indicative scope of possible work items” and
> “including but not limited to.” The five areas of work in this list seem broad and
> large enough to keep the WG busy for quite some time. For the charter to
> effectively limit the scope I think it would need to say “The scope of work items
> is limited to:” or something like that.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> > , otherwise, people may take anything has the work "automatic" to the WG; B,
> to give the chairs a little bit flexibility to adopt new works beyond the initial
> milestone list. We try to avoid the problem that every time a new draft comes up,
> it may become a charter revision, particularly, giving the current re-charting
> process have taken us many months.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Sheng
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >> Alissa
> >>
> >>> On Jun 10, 2019, at 9:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> >> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I've taken the liberty of posting an update to the draft charter at
> >>> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/anima/wiki/Recharter2019. I tried to
> >>> respond to all the IESG comments, and in particular:
> >>>
> >>> (a) I deleted Intent from the summarised reference model framework,
> >>> since the reference model doesn't usefully define Intent.
> >>>
> >>> (b) I tried to make the statement about workload throttling more
> >>> implementable.
> >>>
> >>> (c) I still think that the laundry list of *possible* work items is
> >>> useful (it helps to define the scope) but I've tried make it clear
> >>> that it is only the "indicative scope of possible work items".
> >>> It really isn't mission creep; all the items mentioned relate
> >>> directly to the ANI and AF topics.
> >>>
> >>> (d) I intentionally removed the reference to not covering machine
> >>> learning and AI. It isn't suggested anywhere in the reference model,
> >>> so why even mention it?
> >>>
> >>> (e) I fixed nits and tuned the wording in several places.
> >>>
> >>> I hope this helps. We really need a new charter before Montreal.
> >>> WG Chairs and AD, over to you...
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>>  Brian Carpenter
> >>>
> >>> On 02-May-19 08:39, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >>>> Hi Alissa,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 02-May-19 08:05, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> BLOCK:
> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> --
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (1) "Acceptance of work items by the WG will be
> >>>>> scheduled/throttled so that contributors can target them to enter
> >>>>> WG last call after not more than a number of IETF meeting cycles agreed
> by the AD."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't understand the implications of this. What happens if the
> >>>>> adopted work items have not entered WGLC after the agreed number
> >>>>> of cycles? If the answer is anything other than "the WG abandons
> >>>>> the work," I don't understand how this is a throttling mechanism.
> >>>>> A throttling mechanism would need an explicit limit on the number
> >>>>> of
> >> adopted work items at any one time, I think.
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree that the text is a bit illogical. In a sense it's
> >>>> unnecessary, because every WG should be matching its workload to
> >>>> its capacity. Maybe that's all we should say, rather than trying to
> >>>> describe a
> >> slightly vague algorithm?
> >>>>
> >>>>> (2) The proposed work items is a very large and somewhat unbounded
> >>>>> list of items, whereas the purpose of writing a charter is to
> >>>>> scope the work of the WG and hopefully set out a realistic work
> >>>>> plan that will be accompanied by deployment. For a WG that has
> >>>>> produced 5 documents in the last 5 years, I think the charter
> >>>>> needs to more narrowly focus on the most highly prioritized work
> >>>>> items. Once those are nearing completion, it seems as though
> >>>>> evaluation of what is needed next based on deployment experience
> >>>>> would then dictate the next
> >> set of items for another re-charter.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think the point here is that now that the relatively small number
> >>>> of infrastructure documents are almost finished, the next stage
> >>>> opens up the possibilities for a much wider range of work that
> >>>> builds on the infrastructure. The priorities aren't even obvious.
> >>>> So this goes with the previous point, and to quite some extent the
> >>>> criteria will be whether the WG has capacity more than which topic has
> priority.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's why there's a bucket list of work items and a short list of
> >>>> immediate milestones.
> >>>>
> >>>> Would this help?
> >>>>
> >>>> s/Proposed work items include.../Possible work items include.../
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> COMMENT:
> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> --
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It would be good to see milestones with dates before this gets approved.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think this charter would benefit from an English edit pass
> >>>>> before going
> >> out for external review.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll volunteer, when the open issues have been resolved.
> >>>>
> >>>>> What is "compounding environment"?
> >>>>
> >>>> An excellent question.
> >>>>
> >>>>   Brian
> >>>>
> >