Re: WGs/AD [IETF areas re-organisation steps]

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Sat, 27 December 2014 06:24 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F16FA1A6F87 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 22:24:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uwPgC1PqGNEA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 22:24:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-x231.google.com (mail-pd0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAF9A1A1EB7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 22:24:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pd0-f177.google.com with SMTP id ft15so13955579pdb.36 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 22:24:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iqrilZ2msJYQDcd0MvhfQSL5DJpwIE/D8cVGFfjp8nI=; b=y2Fn73BFc+2SshEx9TW9fx6CF9Q6oB9W/ps5nejWKnOlQe/1FmnY0cBucoxfh25SXl F+ZZKgatF9wu0Eym7tZhm0fkoutNjC6gerwu+NUuefBGzaMGxIXG1H1quhB8Qq8qZllu XPRynOtOIsMyNaYEigPw2quFa9UtrGFlhYRhe3n4s99BIe+I1qdmt0D0CzN5idwqh8Nk wy5+Q4Fzg+SRFKD2pIu89eGKguBjsfzTBIGjb1gaCyRfIPHD4wTshWjvZ4soMOJpzHuR 81l7sMEzgYHefSmACQTWfHYyS7fa3GzpSomi0LjvZMortFvvdU8KHKJZXcOJfWP1f5J2 V8uw==
X-Received: by 10.70.95.133 with SMTP id dk5mr41759601pdb.98.1419661466052; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 22:24:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spandex.local (209-112-186-33-rb1.nwc.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [209.112.186.33]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id o3sm29855211pdn.29.2014.12.26.22.24.24 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 26 Dec 2014 22:24:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <549E5097.5040501@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 21:24:23 -0900
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WGs/AD [IETF areas re-organisation steps]
References: <ED473823-2B1E-4431-8B42-393D20BA72DF@piuha.net> <7973.1419613616@sandelman.ca> <CAG4d1rcXa10moh7-V2oteV+3o8y0s+QwCTXaCWt5aBeRdPKv=A@mail.gmail.com> <549DB9A6.4050506@gmail.com> <CAG4d1rc3vB693OAW8KrzVaZ3hkdL1OuD=4dByVVW7yuD0+Otvg@mail.gmail.com> <549DDF98.1060802@gmail.com> <CAG4d1rdE_=Hu4m9TXiVKZ712=eUpaQ3ak07zp6enhYkAHKoRJA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rdE_=Hu4m9TXiVKZ712=eUpaQ3ak07zp6enhYkAHKoRJA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/X5QEEWKjgSaNpgEZ76Lz6eyFd6w
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 06:24:28 -0000

On 12/26/14 8:52 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> There are a few things we can do.  Some things that I've been trying to
> do in Routing include:
>   a) discouragement of progressing many use-case and requirements drafts.
>       We had drifted towards having WGs producing some to help
> articulate what
>       needed to be done - but then more and more appear and only some
>       actually provide more useful feedback to the architecture or
> protocol.  I
>       would rather see WGs produce things that can be implemented with the
>       necessary context than spend years working on use-cases and
> requirements.
>       I'm past the waterfall model of software development.
> 
>   b) Encourage WG chairs to think about the need for ACTIVE consensus rather
>       than passive.  If there isn't the enthusiasm to review and improve
> a draft or
>       implement it, then does it really need to be an RFC?
> 
>   c) Better and early cross-WG review once a draft is adopted as a WG draft.
>       Well-written drafts without serious issues are much faster to
> manage, review,
>       and progress.
> 
>   d) Be willing to let WGs fail - by also letting them just get on with
> doing solutions.

These are all things I'd love to see implemented across the
organization, as well as raising the bar on BOFs - I've seen
some ADs put a massive amount of effort into BOFs that are
held around ideas that aren't fully-formed (it's not necessarily
that they're bad ideas, but rather the problem is that the
proposals are awfully immature).

I've been trying to decide what I think of the proposed
reorganization and I guess I'm neutral on it - it seems that
the workload problem isn't necessarily going to go away with
a reorganization, but that the two problems (structural
efficiency and manageable workload) would need to be
tackled in parallel.  I think Alia's list is a good start
on the workload issue.

Melinda