Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] DNSOP Document Adoption Poll (June 2022)

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

Hi Benno -


On 7/7/2022 12:28 PM, Benno Overeinder wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On 07/07/2022 17:21, Michael StJohns wrote:
>> On 7/7/2022 11:10 AM, Benno Overeinder wrote:
>>> It helps us and the WG itself to prioritise WG activities and start 
>>> a regular WG call for adoption of a number of documents.  We will 
>>> share the results of the poll with the WG and how to make an initial 
>>> selection of documents that will be included in the WG call for 
>>> adoption process.  We currently have 6 drafts for which the authors 
>>> have asked WG adoption, but that is too much new work for the WG to 
>>> work on.
>>>
>>> Any feedback on improving the process to prioritise work in the WG 
>>> is welcome.
>>
>> All of that is a good and just reason to send out calls for adoption. 
>> But the point of the previous messages was that the poll was not the 
>> way to do that.  Basically, making a poll choice without providing 
>> context and an opportunity for discussion a) lacks transparency (in 
>> that when the chairs make a decision, the WG has no basis on which to 
>> evaluate that decision), b) lacks nuance (in that the choices 
>> provided do not cover some shadings of what to do - e.g., not ready 
>> for consideration), c) lacks WG participation (a discussion about a 
>> document gets us to a better result than blind voting).
>
> I see the points you are making but as we mentioned we will be sharing 
> and discussing the results of the poll, so for transparency of the 
> decision making process and WG participation in this it will be on the 
> WG mailing list.  For your concerns wrt. the nuance there should be 
> room during this mailing list discussion.

If we're going to be discussing the individual documents, then exactly 
what use is the poll?  Sending out a note that lists the 6 documents and 
with a request to respond in line with comments on each with respect to 
adoption and other comments would require exactly the same amount of 
work from the responders, would provide others with an impetus to also 
respond, and would provide the chairs with a wealth more information.  
If additional discussion on a particular document were necessary, a new 
thread could be created for that document.  But, IANADC... :-)

>
> If I read your concerns correctly, instead of 6 WG call for adoptions 
> in a short period (or in one go) we will have a phased WG call for 
> adoptions in the next month with 3 candidates and when the WG 
> completes current existing work, another batch of 2, 3 or 4 WG calls 
> for adoption will be issued.  And an outcome of the call for adoption 
> can be a yes/no/not ready for consideration/..., as usual.

See above.

>
> Conducting a survey (2 times now) has worked well over the past 1.5 
> years to prioritise finishing existing work and starting new work.  
> Two years ago we (as a WG) discussed how to manage the workload of the 
> WG and running a poll seemed to be one of the mechanisms to help with 
> that.

Using the search terms "poll" and "survey" individually via the DNSOP 
archive web page, I found the last July email 
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/bXDwmPhft5BXFndKs5xI3FjOewE/) 
which was about prioritization and a bunch of doodle polls about interim 
WG scheduling.  I didn't find any about new work.  For the 
prioritization google thing, I can't actually read the text of the 
google doc via that link, and I'm not sure what to search for in the 
mail archive to find the resultant document if indeed it was published 
to the list.  Searching the archives is *very* clumsy. So, depending 
only on my memory, I seem to remember that other poll was only about 
dealing with accepted work that hadn't progressed (i.e., kill or 
keep).   Scanning forward from the publication date of that poll, I 
can't see anyplace where the result of that poll was actually published 
to the list.  The chair's meeting notes of 6 Aug 2021, 20 Aug 2021 and 3 
Sept 2021 don't reference the poll.  The 19 Nov 2021 notes indicate that 
another poll was being considered for work prioritization, but I can't 
find where it was sent, if at all.

So, could you send me the link to the DNSOP emails where the results of 
the previous two surveys were published please?  And for that matter 
where the second prioritization poll was sent out.

Thanks - Mike


>
>> The fact that the chairs did not respond to the original messages is 
>> also a bit problematic.
>
> Apologies for not responding to the original messages, but was in no 
> way intended to ignore them.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- Benno
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop