Re: [RAI] RAI processes for handling work effectively

On 07/28/2013 10:48 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 27 July 2013 11:49, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>> All of this points to a need for careful review. What it does not point
>> out is any need for a *slow*, *inconsistent* and *unpredictable* review
>> process - which is what I feel the "standing working groups" are giving
>> us now.
> Isn't that just a natural by-product of using SDP, with all that
> baggage Hadriel describes?

Well - I could have made a lot of the same comments about AVTCORE and
the RTP issues we are facing, but MMUSIC just felt like a more current
example :-)

>
> I don't think that you get any better review if you make new working
> groups.  In fact, you get even slower, less consistent and possibly no
> review at all.  One virtue of the long-standing working group is that
> over time it accumulates a following of people who know stuff about
> the work.  I saw this with the DHC WG, which was actually invaluable
> when it came to bringing work there.
That's where my thinking about review teams, directorates and other
possible constructs comes in. I think one core point here is that for
any question asked, there needs to be some identified "someone" who's
charged with coming up with "the answer" (or "the information needed to
make sense of the question") - and is able to do so on a relatively
short timeframe.

Quite hard to achieve consistently in a volunteer organization, but I
don't think it's impossible to try something that might work better than
the WG format.

>
> Again, not an indictment of your thesis about more focused working
> groups, just an observation about this particular problem.
> _______________________________________________
> RAI mailing list
> RAI@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai