Re: [mpowr] WG Formation

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Saturday, 14 February, 2004 09:48 -0800 Dave Crocker 
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> JCK> I think your proposal and mine are largely compatible.
>
> oh, you optimist, you...

Sigh.

> JCK> I think there should be a number of different ways of
> getting to JCK> a WG and that _any_ model through which all
> pre-WGs and WGs must  JCK> go is an invitation to getting
> ourselves bogged down in  JCK> procedural nonsense and
> rigidity rather than keeping the focus  JCK> on getting the
> job done.
>
> I think we have a meaningful difference, here.
>
> By their nature, rules are Procrustean.  Hence, rules should
> be created only when the tradeoffs among flexibility,
> efficiency, quality and the like all warrant it.  In this
> case, I think we have a very serious problem with wasteful
> formation of unproductive working groups.

Our diagnosis differs somewhat.   I'd say we have a lifecycle 
problem with the time between when an effort starts to come 
together and when we either have it producing standards or move 
it off the IETF queue. While we can certainly manipulate things 
like nominal starting points to make the IETF look better 
statistically, I don't consider that a useful objective.  There 
are perfectly good efforts that don't belong in the IETF but 
that need some input and feedback from us.  We may be able to 
figure that out quickly; it may take a while.  Leaving them on 
their own for a long time and then providing them that feedback 
when they decide they want a charter may be the right thing to 
do for some of them, early BOFs and strong early feedback may be 
right for others, and the spotlight of a WG which then gets its 
plug pulled may be right for yet others.  I think we have a 
serious problem in that we are wasteful in the processes we use 
to [decide to] create and terminate WGs.    I think your 
conclusion, above, is a symptom of the fact that we have made 
the creation and deletion processes much too complex and 
ponderous.

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

Obviously, "trust the IESG" models are an important part of that 
approach.   If those folks can't figure out which pre-WG (or 
during-WG, or post-WG) approach is likely to work best for them 
and a given situation, I don't see any reason to believe that 
they can do better with a single standardized sequence of events 
that still cumulate in the need to make subjective evaluations 
and decisions. We also got some new data yesterday that, I 
believe, deserves very careful consideration: for all of the 
complaints about IESG poor decisions, poor allocations of 
priorities, and so forth, the Nomcom looked at the IESG, 
discussed issues with the community, evaluated people and 
alternatives... and returned every single IESG member except the 
one who had voluntarily stepped down.  Like it or not, that is a 
pretty strong statement, on behalf of the community, that we are 
in reasonable shape and that IESG members are behaving 
reasonably and making mostly the right decisions.  If we don't 
believe that conclusion, we need to stop wasting our time with 
little details like WG creating and, instead, start thinking 
about how to replace the Nomcom model and with what.  And, if we 
do believe it, then, IMO, the IESG may need suggestions, 
guidelines, and reminders, but probably doesn't need more rule 
to try to constrain their behavior (especially since rules to 
constrain them have a history of being, effectively, ignored).

I think the rest of your note reflects this difference in 
perspective, so won't make this one longer by running through it 
point by point.   I do want to note that nothing I suggested 
involves "an automatic ticket to WG status".   Each of them, 
including, to me, your suggestion, is a way for the IESG to 
accumulate data on which a decision can then be made -- a 
decision to establish a WG, to send the group elsewhere, or to 
advise them to develop more data (using the same or different 
methods).

    john


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