Re: Request for feedback - IESG thoughts about new work proposals

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Keith has tagged the tension here. That's worth a specific mention.

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Keith Moore <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> I'd like to see an effort to encourage IETF participants in general (not
>> just a few handpicked people) to think more broadly.   I'd like to see more
>> meeting time devoted to identifying common ground and opportunities for
>> more broadly applicable work.   Such efforts should NOT be expected to
>> propose working groups, at least not in the near term.   It's fine if they
>> do, but the expectation should not be there.   And I don't care what such
>> sessions are called, but I think BOFs were originally supposed to be able
>> to serve such purposes.
>>
>
> As Spencer mentioned, the challenging ideas tend to touch on multiple
> areas or be so broad as to be hard to break down to concrete work items.
> How do we, the IESG, encourage proponents and others to do the map-and-gap
> wok and describe the framework that is more broadly applicable?  Since I
> started on the IESG, we've pushed back against unnecessary "process" or
> information documents such as too many/poor use-cases, architectures,
> frameworks, and requirements - but it feels like those are what is needed
> to adequately explain and map the space for more broadly applicable work.
> What happens if a BoF isn't sufficient to help that work happen?
> Does it make sense to charter WGs just focused on the map-and-gap?   What
> about applicability?
>
> Regards,
> Alia
>
>
> Working groups are good at identifying and fixing bugs, holes, and edge
> cases, but bad at architecture and design.  So I think I'd recommend having
> a BOF to introduce the topic, and requesting that individuals or small
> groups of people submit proposals via Internet-draft.  Then plan to hold
> another BOF at a subsequent meeting,
>

If you do what https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5434#section-2 suggests,

   It is also important to recognize the timing constraints.  As
   described in detail below, the deadline for scheduling BOFs is
   approximately six weeks prior to an IETF meeting.  Working backwards
   from that date, taking into consideration the time required to write
   drafts, have public discussion, allow the ADs to evaluate the
   proposed BOF, etc., the right time to start preparing for a BOF is
   almost certainly the meeting prior to the one in which the BOF is
   desired.  By implication, starting the work aimed at leading to a BOF
   only 2 months prior to an IETF meeting is, in most cases, waiting too
   long, and will likely result in the BOF being delayed until the
   following IETF meeting.

That's roughly four months from first contact to first BOF. If this is a
"big project", assume that one's not working group-forming, but launches
investigations that result in a second BOF. So, now, 8 months from first
contact to second BOF.

If an effort doesn't coalesce in one IETF meeting cycle, that's now coming
up on a year from first contact to second BOF. I note that both TEEP and
FUD/SUIT fall into this category (requested for IETF 98, approved as
WG-forming for IETF 100), so that's not an unusual path forward.

I've been saying to the IESG that if we want to finish work sooner,
changing the way we doing things so we can start that work sooner seems
like the most obvious change we can make.

That's why (speaking only for me) I'm hoping that some proposals can be
chartered based on maps and gaps and a charter proposal, which might or
might not require a BOF.

That's why (speaking for the IESG) we want to find out about BOF proposals
early enough to steer (in a helpful way).

And thanks for the feedback. I am watching, even if I don't reply to every
e-mail in this thread.

Spencer


> if there are any proposals, to discuss those proposals.  Repeat as
> necessary until there's a sense that there's a viable path forward (at
> which point it's time to charter a working group), or until no progress is
> being made.
>
> Keith
>
>