Re: [Icar] ICAR draft charter rev 2

[Alex Rousskov <[e-mail]>]

Alex,

	I am sorry, but I still do not like the proposed WG
charter/direction/milestones. Your Version2 edits were very useful in
that they made old problems with scope and authority more explicit and
visible. Perhaps charters are not perceived as important WG documents
in IETF, but I think they should be reviewed and polished as
rigorously as protocols.

	My specific comments and wording suggestions are inlined
below, but I am waiting for somebody to say that "rough consensus does
not require unanimity" and keep going in the direction you want.

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Alex Zinin wrote:

>    WG Description:
>
>      The WG will work out mechanisms for improved cross-functional
>      review within the IETF, addressing the issues identified by the
>      PROBLEM WG.

What is the rationale behind trying to limit the scope of the WG to
cross-functional review? Given your definition of "cross-functional"
as "document review covering different aspects of Internet
technology", the above scope definition includes virtually _any_
review within the IETF.

IMO, "any review" should be the explicit scope. We should not try to
limit the scope using unbounded concepts like cross-functional review
(as currently defined). I cannot think of any significant review
activity that the above scope statement (along with the
cross-functional definition) would clearly _exclude_.

Also, let's not imply that we will solve all PROBLEM WG problems and
let's not mix scope and an incomplete problem list together.

Suggested wording:

	The WG will improve IETF review mechanisms by adjusting
	existing mechanisms and proposing new ones. The improvements
	will address at least the following known issues:
		- provide a list of issues
		- quoting PROBLEM WG output as needed

>      This includes a better community review, as well as
>      more structured pre-IESG review that may be used to improve
>      scalability of the IESG review function.

I do not understand why this WG must stop at the IESG border. Are we
saying that IESG review mechanisms are already good enough and just do
not scale well? What if the best solution will require some IESG-level
changes? How about IAB involvement? Is it necessarily post-IESG?

Suggested wording:

	Review mechanisms under consideration cover both community and
	structured review, may span all levels of IETF structure, and
	may require changes to IETF entity roles or structure.

>      Definitions:
>
>       o Cross-functional review: document review covering different
>       aspects of Internet technology, including those represented by
>       WGs within different IETF areas.

If my changes are accepted, the above definition becomes unnecessary.

>       o Community review: document review performed by individual IETF
>       participants and not caused by their responsibilities within
>       the IETF management structure.
>
>       o Structured review: more formal and role-based document review
>       performed by individuals assuming certain responsibilities (such
>       as by WG chairs, directorate and IESG members.)

Good.

>      It is an explicit goal of the WG to come up with mechanisms
>      encouraging earlier review of the documents.

It is trivial to come up with encouraging mechanisms. We should aim
higher and also be more specific about what "earlier" means.  Earlier
than what? Suggested wording:

	It is an explicit goal of the WG to design "early review"
	mechanisms. These mechanisms should ensure that most IETF
	documents are reviewed and corrected before the estimated
	cost of correction becomes comparable with the cost of
	leaving the review-identified defect unfixed.

The above suggested wording needs further polishing, but I hope it
gives enough idea on how I think we should introduce early review into
the charter.

>      An early review is
>      best for catching architectural problems while they're still
>      relatively easy to solve. In particular, many cross-functional
>      interactions can be spotted and dealt with, thus avoiding many
>      "late surprises". A final review (currently done by the IESG) can
>      catch remaining cross-functional interactions, as well as deal
>      with overall quality issues.

I would suggest to remove the above paragraph as unnecessary and even
too suggestive about a stage-like approach and final review role.

>      The WG will cooperate with others in starting and evaluating
>      experiments with early community and structured reviews. The
>      evaluation of such experiments may be published as Informational
>      RFCs if the group so desires.

Does the above wording change anything for this WG? In other words,
what would change if we remove the above paragraph? To me, it sounds
lile a non-statement that is true for every WG.

>      The WG will also coordinate with other WGs involved in the IETF
>      reform process on proposed changes to the IETF Working Group
>      operations and Standards process if those are considered
>      necessary.

Same comment: What would change if we remove the above paragraph? It
is so vague that it seems useless to me. If we can identify specific
WGs and liaisons, then we should do so. If we cannot, we are not
really providing any useful information here. All IETF WGs should
cooperate, of course.

>    WG milestones:
>
>      FEB 2004: Submit drafts on improved community and structured reviews

40 days sounds like an unnecessary aggressive deadline, especially if
the WG has to submit all drafts by then. It would take at least 20-30
days to carefully review and polish existing drafts, and we do not
have any of decent quality to start with. I would suggest to add at
least one more month.

Also, "submitting a draft" is trivial because one can submit a
placeholder. See specific wording suggestions below.

>      SEP 2004: Submit draft on improved community review to
>                the IESG for publication as BCP
>      SEP 2004: Submit draft on improved structured community review to
>                the IESG for publication as BCP

Again, I am against separating the two drafts in the charter. Perhaps
we will have one draft addressing both areas with a single, unified
solution. Or maybe we will have three drafts that split the work
horizontally and not vertically (whatever that means). Also, it is not
clear whether we can plan that well in advance.


How about replacing all currently proposed deadlines with:

  FEB 2004: Decide on a comprehensive set of review mechanisms.
  MAR 2004: Document alpha versions of all review mechanisms.
  APR 2004: Evaluate WG progress and potential; close or recharter.


Thank you,

Alex.

_______________________________________________
Icar mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar