Re: [mpowr] WG Formation

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

Thomas,

TN> immediate focus of the WG. Etc.  And because there is a judgement call
TN> (on which different people may not agree) on many of these points,
TN> coming up with clear criteria that folks will generally agree on is
TN> probably not so easy.

Your list is quite good.  And the subjectivity in applying the criteria
is exactly why my suggestion does not specify any of those details.

In other words, it proposes a rigid requirement for some activities that
will provide very useful -- and very visible -- input to the chartering
process.

However, it wisely does not alter the core nature of that process.
Notably, the judgement call remains as it is now. And again we should
note that the suggestion is for something that is already done, just not
often enough.


>> One approach that will help is to require that working group formation
>> be predicated on a demonstrated ability to conduct productive discussion
>> over a mailing list and with enough participation to demonstrate
>> meaningful constituency.

TN> I think that in practice this is already being done.

As I said, if there is rough consensus that we do not have a problem
with BOFs (and, yes, working groups) being authorized without sufficient
preparatory work, then my suggestion should not carry the day.


TN> As one example (since folk here probably aren't aware of it...) Some

There are many examples of good decisions. The problem is with the
pattern for the IETF. If folks think the _pattern_ or preparatory work
is acceptable, then let's move on to a topic that folks feel _is_ a
problem.


>> An alternative would be to continue to charter working groups that lack
>> a track record for timely productivity, and continue to task the working
>> group chairs and cognizant area director with fixing the working groups
>> that fail to become coherent and productive in a timely fashion.

TN> One thing the above doesn't help with is work areas where there are
TN> clearly folk interested in working on the problem, the problem is
TN> real and in need of a solution, but the effort needs help getting on
TN> track.

It's probably worth exploring the term "getting on track".

I believe that it usually refers to a lack of clear focus, typically
including a problem and solution statement that is too fuzzy.  Such
situations are not yet ready for a standards effort, because they do not
know what they want to standardize.  Maybe they need an IRTF effort.
Maybe they just need the usual array of organizing pre-standards effort
that _any_ standards effort requires.

My own sense of things is that we do a really terrible job at getting
fuzzy efforts on track after a group is chartered.

So let's stop trying.


TN> I think the answer depends on many factors, but when the problem is of
TN> importance to the IETF, and there is enough activity going on that if
TN> the IETF ignores it, it will have to deal with the consequences later
TN> anyway, keeping them at arms length doesn't seem like the better
TN> alternative.

Importance to the net is, of course... important. However a failure to
develop a clear working path is a show-stopper. The IETF has
demonstrated a pretty clear pattern of success only when folks who will
work on a problem have a clear, shared sense of the problem and the
approach towards solving it.

I believe that working groups that are
chartered without having this usually fare very poorly, and that they
take a long time and often take a lot of resources to achieve that poor
result.


TN> Certainly, there is a time for this. But I think there are too many
TN> differences in each BOF situation to make hard-and-fast rules that
TN> MUST be adhered to.

Does that mean keep the status quo for dealing with BOFs or did you have
a suggestion for something that will make them more useful?

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