Re: [mpowr] WG Formation

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 14 February 2004 16:44 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23431 for <mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:44:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1As2tU-0001h6-3W for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:43:52 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1EGhqWE006506 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:43:52 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1As2tT-0001gr-UU for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:43:51 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23411 for <mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:43:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1As2tS-0000lo-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:43:50 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1As2sX-0000il-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:42:54 -0500
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1As2rg-0000fW-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:42:00 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1As2rh-0001dQ-45; Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:42:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1As2rT-0001cz-Hx for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:41:47 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23368 for <mpowr@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:41:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1As2rS-0000e9-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:41:46 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1As2qT-0000aZ-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:40:46 -0500
Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=bs.jck.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1As2pW-0000XB-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:39:47 -0500
Received: from [209.187.148.215] (helo=scan.jck.com) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 1As2pW-0005n0-00; Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:39:46 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:39:46 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>, mpowr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpowr] WG Formation
Message-ID: <38529151.1076758786@scan.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <1943493383.20040214081341@brandenburg.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.56.0402040844140.19559@internaut.com> <327742548.1076153200@scan.jck.com> <1943493383.20040214081341@brandenburg.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.2 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr>, <mailto:mpowr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results <mpowr.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:mpowr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpowr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr>, <mailto:mpowr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dave,

I think your proposal and mine are largely compatible.  Let me 
try to explain that...

I think there should be a number of different ways of getting to 
a WG and that _any_ model through which all pre-WGs and WGs must 
go is an invitation to getting ourselves bogged down in 
procedural nonsense and rigidity rather than keeping the focus 
on getting the job done.   So, e.g., any of the following ought 
to be considered reasonable, depending on circumstances, AD/ 
IESG/ community perspective, etc...

	* As you suggest, demonstrate, by action and drafts,
	that there is work which is ready to be turned into a
	WG, with or without a BOF or two, depending on what is
	and is not demonstrated.
	
	* Hold a BOF or two and demonstrate that things have
	crystallized that way (I note that we used to have a
	fairly rigid "two BOFs and no more" rule, but that, now,
	we seem to be able to have two or three BOFs, a change
	of name and microscopic change of focus, a few more
	BOFs,... and that cannot often be a good sign).
	
	* Spin up an RG which eventually makes a WG
	recommendation.
	
	* Charter a group on a "short leash" basis as my
	comments suggested.

That isn't an exclusive list -- I imagine that there might be a 
half-dozen other options that would make sense occasionally -- 
and some of the above might be combined.   For example, no 
matter how a WG gets started, I would hope for significant AD 
oversight in the first six months or a year with rapid 
plug-pulling if it heads resolutely off into the weeds (on 
Valentine's Day, I am somehow drawn to analogies to couples who 
have really good relationships until they get married, then 
start having serious trouble almost immediately).

For me, the observation that some ADs have started using BOFs as 
a way to getting the community to shoot down a WG proposal, 
rather than doing it themselves, is a symptom of another 
problem.  But the solution isn't obviously to replace a 
BOF-rigidity with some other rigidity.  And there are certainly 
groups who could have, and did, managed to organize pre-WG (and 
even pre-BOF) mailing list discussions, documents, etc., which 
ended up not working out well as WGs.

In these troubled times, there is also two risks inherent in 
lots of pre-BOF work: (i) if a small, semi-private, group holds 
a lot of discussions and formulates a position, any IETF review, 
even if it occurs the day after chartering, is likely to be 
"late" review in terms of its interactions with already-hardened 
positions.  (ii) And such discussions may not be subject to IETF 
IPR provisions which could lead to some interesting ways to 
plant time bombs.  We could protect against some of that by 
being aggressive about the "formative efforts" listing you 
suggest, but such a listing would be taken by many groups (and 
their publicists) as IETF endorsement of, and commitment to, 
their efforts.   So, while I think the model you suggest would 
be a very useful tool (and, as you say, we more or less used to 
do it that way), there are unfriendly dragons by the sides of 
the path and we need to be aware of them.

In no case do I think we can afford to get ourselves into a "if 
you manage to jump through the following hoops, you are entitled 
to have a WG, and, if the WG jumps through the following 
additional hoops, it is entitled to get a standard approved". 
More flexibility about creation, evaluation, and termination 
would seem to help us avoid even the impression of that 
situation.

     regards,
       john


--On Saturday, 14 February, 2004 08:13 -0800 Dave Crocker 
<dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> (many thanks to bernard for creating this line of discussion
> and John for focusing on the startup issue.)
>
>
> JCK>  ...  A decade ago, a BOF
> JCK> (much less a couple of BOFs) were not requirements for
> creating  JCK> a WG.
>
> In fact, a common requirement for authorizing a BOF was that
> there _already_ be an active mailing list.  If the IETF still
> believes that the primary venue for work is the mailing list,
> then that is where the primary work of _formation_ needs to
> take place.
>
> I think that the desires for "give it a try and stop it if
> there is not sufficient progress" can be satisfied entirely by
> a simple structure that involves almost no extra IETF
> administrative or management effort. In fact it will require
> _less_ effort than needed today:
>
>
>      1. Anyone wanting to form a working group must first
> create a      mailing list, and a web page that lists at least
> a mailing list and      archive, and a candidate charter,
>
>      2. The mailing list must show enough history of activity
> to assess      a pattern, specifically one of productive
> IETF-like discussion, for      the charter and for the actual
> work.
>
>      3. The IETF should provide a "WG Formative Efforts" page
> and list      any and all efforts that satisfy step 1.
>
>      4. A BOF can be authorized after #2 is satisfied.
>
> This gives efforts some visibility and allows them whatever
> startup thrashing they need. When they get past that stage and
> start doing productive, IETF types of work, they can be
> treated as a serious candidate for IETF oversight.
>
> I think that "relaxed chartering" has the very serious problem
> of creating lots of management pain, for little or no gain.
> It is too easy to do the pre-IETF work in a pre-IETF
> environment.  Forcing IETF management to be involved --
> especially with killing unproductive efforts -- is pretty much
> a lose-lose structure.
>
>
> d/
> --
>  Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
>  Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpowr mailing list
> mpowr@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr





_______________________________________________
mpowr mailing list
mpowr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr