Re: [mpowr] WG Formation

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

JCK>   While we can certainly manipulate things
JCK> like nominal starting points to make the IETF look better 
JCK> statistically, I don't consider that a useful objective.

Neither do I.

There are two purposes to my propsal:

1. Impose a rigorous barrier to IETF entry

It will filter out quite a
bit of poor work, simply by requiring that a group demonstrate that it
can be productive, _before_ it is made a working group. This is an
entirely natural barrier.

Do we have significant indication that working groups with truly lousy
initial behavior later turn out to do something valuable? (I'm looking
for a pattern here, not an exception.) If a working group cannot have
its act together initially, it is not ready for open, standards-oriented
engineering prime time. So let's not give them a ticket to the game
until they are ready.

Please note that I did not say to ignore them until they are chartered.
The suggestion to list them gives them visibility.  I've no doubt some
other cheap and useful actions will also help.


2. Significantly reduce the IETF management and operations burden of
wasteful working groups.

This is not just an AD issue. There is also the small matter of WG chair
time, Secretariat time, IETF meeting space and time, etc. All of these
are very, very scarce resources, which we have a pattern of squandering.

Rather than task ADs with watching out for questionable working groups
and rather than having those questionable working groups add to the
congestion of IETF week meeting time, move the startup noise out of the
organization.


JCK>  There 
JCK> are perfectly good efforts that don't belong in the IETF but 
JCK> that need some input and feedback from us.  We may be able to 
JCK> figure that out quickly; it may take a while.

That sounds as if the IETF has some sort of track record "taking awhile"
and giving corrective feedback that is productive.  Again, I'd be
interested in hearing about the pattern of achievement here, because my
own sense is that it is quite poor.



JCK> So, on the one hand, were I giving ADs advice, my advice would
JCK> be that, in a very large fraction of cases, the model you and 
JCK> Bert have suggested is the right one.   But I'd like to see ADs 
JCK> look at these situations one at a time, make judgments 
JCK> (consulting mailing lists, directorates, and other mechanisms 
JCK> for understanding community views as appropriate), and then 
JCK> choose models, tools, and methods for particular groups as they 
JCK> think appropriate... to the situation and to their particular 
JCK> management styles and preferences.

In a perfect world, I would agree with you.  In world with ADs who were
consistently expert in these skills and in a world where ADs had plenty
of time for such activities, I would agree with you.

However the reality is that the IETF succeeds when a group self-form and
had develops enough motivation and cohesion to be productive. For any
other scenario, I believe the IETF experience is frustrating, at best,
and more often wasteful and unproductive.

The idea that ADs actually can or should have the task of "teaching"
working groups to be productive is a very serious and strategic
management error, based on the IETF performance I've witnessed.


JCK>    I do want to note that nothing I suggested
JCK> involves "an automatic ticket to WG status".

Yeah, I thought you'd take exception to that, and indeed it went beyond
your words.

However it is not clear what to do with something like "prior IRTF
effort", beyond feed it into the paradigm I am suggesting. Once we try
to do anything else with it, I believe the pragmatics turn it into
"automatic ticket". Anything else, I believe, will be too subtle for
practical use.


d/
--
 Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:[phone]>


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