Re: [RAI] RAI processes for handling work effectively

Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Wed, 19 June 2013 14:35 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rai@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rai@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68EC021F9C4D for <rai@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:35:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.298, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZAQSoXRjpQ4q for <rai@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qe0-f49.google.com (mail-qe0-f49.google.com [209.85.128.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27CA821F9C4C for <rai@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f49.google.com with SMTP id cz11so3272505qeb.22 for <rai@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2Jh1wqEQUrecHgbZHF8dDvFnMmWa2xLdA460iROcaDw=; b=SGOICroG0lJmkfz+sXWsVb1IUVEFCbWX17aAgaJI+yXtaW+vGt8nTmjnn9ujFKG1UK 2w3Ho+2llTnKowbWen0DTuK/C9a4lImrf4D2Du2sye0J1cZ0ZKKGpRm/a6c2n4F6lBJW gYscw9gLow5RNQTqvS23rD69djJ+zj4a0ggm/gjJ7A+vRMewJwfD3sMi3cUPn8Sz67Qv ZHfjAC3Fytbp4PRKeekUEwMedhS8TyXf9Tc4Ft1/2vw/56mjanDQYb6fK+tw4gbiVejk WXD5wMsPsIQv9difm4m/xNo83LzMH6D9pqELOImDMZOYkcUchlSO9eSjH8OcQmjSUjQZ w4OQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.38.133 with SMTP id b5mr4021434qae.78.1371652516607; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.76.167 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53BDCCA9-CBC5-4992-BE2D-7A96250202F7@brianrosen.net>
References: <51C157BA.70509@ericsson.com> <53BDCCA9-CBC5-4992-BE2D-7A96250202F7@brianrosen.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:35:16 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHBDyN5zFVfj6we1X_PXoGKjax1h-X2Qots9EO6vbogmhduF1w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "rai@ietf.org" <rai@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [RAI] RAI processes for handling work effectively
X-BeenThere: rai@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Real-time Applications and Infrastructure \(RAI\)" <rai.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rai>, <mailto:rai-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rai>
List-Post: <mailto:rai@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rai-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai>, <mailto:rai-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:35:21 -0000

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 <br@brianrosen.net> 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 <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> 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
>> RAI@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
>
> _______________________________________________
> RAI mailing list
> RAI@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai