Re: [RAI] RAI processes for handling work effectively

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

I like Brian's suggestion as one of the big issues here is that we
have debated some of these issues for eons so it would be good to set
a deadline.  I would strongly suggest that a WG chair that has a
vested interest in a particular proposal (i.e., as an author or
perhaps even with colleagues as co-authors) should NOT be one of the
WG chairs for this joint activity.

Thanks for raising this issue.

Mary.

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Brian Rosen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Suppose we treated this as a mini-WG
> 1. The chairs and ADs work out a charter, with a limited WG time period to discuss. No IESG participation.
> 2. One chair is appointed from among the affected WG chairs
> 3. A new email list is created
> 4. Discussion is held during one of the WG meeting slots.  It can alternate perhaps between the affected groups.  The mini-group doesn't get a slot, but of course it may result in a WG asking for two slots for a particular meeting.
> 5. If there are cross AD issues, one AD is selected
>
> Put a cap on this effort, and make it short - 2 meeting cycles maybe.  If they can't agree, then most likely each of the WGs will need to come up with their own solutions.
> The mini-WG milestone may not be a submitted draft, it could be a mature draft, that would be finished in one of the affected WGs.  It could even be a general agreement on the solution, rather than an actual mature draft.  At the end, the mail list is closed., further discussion if any happens in the WGs.
>
> Brian
> On Jun 19, 2013, at 3:03 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> as you know, in the RAI area we have always considered having effective
>> processes to help us produce relevant and timely specifications a very
>> important issue. When our environment has changed, we have sometimes
>> modified or fine tuned our processes in order to continue being
>> effective. A few examples (among many others) of such changes were the
>> introduction of mentors, the old SIPPING process, P headers, and the
>> current DISPATCH process.
>>
>> It is time for us to look at the current state of affairs and discuss
>> whether or not we need to do certain things in a different way.
>>
>> In particular, we currently have a few groups (e.g., RTCWeb and CLUE)
>> that work on higher-level constructions, which use elements developed in
>> other working groups. For example, CLUE could potentially specify a
>> mechanism that used mechanisms developed in MMUSIC or AVTEXT such as the
>> offer/answer model and a number of RTP extensions.
>>
>> Note that what we called "higher-level constructions" above are referred
>> to by different names by different people: architectures, applications,
>> frameworks, etc. It does not really matter how we call them because this
>> discussion is not about terminology and it is fairly clear what this
>> type of work is about.
>>
>> The way this type of work is currently done in RAI requires the
>> high-level WGs and the WGs developing the individual pieces to
>> communicate often. Those communications are not always easy, since
>> different WGs sometimes have different views on priorities,
>> requirements, use cases, etc.
>>
>> What we would like to get your feedback on is: do we need a better way
>> to handle this type of work in RAI or our current process is as good as
>> it gets?
>>
>> Note that we are interested in getting constructive feedback and ideas
>> on how to improve things. Please, focus your feedback on those aspects.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Gonzalo
>> (on behalf of both RAI ADs)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RAI mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
>
> _______________________________________________
> RAI mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai