Re: [RAI] Making RAI work better

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

Ah, yes. I left out thread prioritization in the mail I just sent. I 
agree with Henning that proper ordering of thread execution is critical.

(If this reads as nonsense to you, read my previous email, which sets up 
the analogy).

/a

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> <rant>
> Prioritizing drafts by dependency chains may help. To take an example 
> that affects a draft which I'm co-authoring:
>
> draft-shacham-sipping-session-mobility
> in RFC editor queue since 2008-01-02
>
> depends on
> draft-ietf-sip-gruu
> in RFC editor queue since 2007-10-15, i.e., almost a year
>
> depends on
> draft-ietf-sip-outbound
> NOT-RECEIVED
>
> Unfortunately, the current area management has not responded to 
> suggestions to remove incidental dependencies as a second-best option 
> when certain documents seem stuck. For example, in our case, the GRUU 
> reference is of no great significance (unless GRUU changes drastically 
> in the RFC editor queue, none of the details could conceivably 
> matter), even more so since the document is informational. The primary 
> document has no dependencies on 'outbound', but is "punished" for 
> whatever sins are holding up "outbound" in purgatory.
>
> 3GPP wants to cite the document, but can't, and there's no way for the 
> authors to resolve the issue, particularly since repeated requests 
> have gone unanswered.
>
> This is one example, but I suspect others have their own personal 
> horror stories. Is it surprising that energy tends to flag given such 
> interminable delays and non-responsiveness?
> </rant>
>
> Henning
>
> On Sep 30, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>
>>
>> Over the past year or so, Jon and I have heard concerns about the
>> efficiency and organization of the RAI Area. We have both observed that
>> the larger working groups, particularly SIP and SIPPING, continue to
>> have difficulty tackling some of their more complex projects. The more
>> critical a document seems to be from a dependency perspective, the more
>> late surprises seem to emerge in its development and the longer it takes
>> to escape from the working group process. A relatively small number of
>> the working groups in the RAI Area seem to encompass the lion's share of
>> our documents in their scope, which may concentrate too much of our work
>> in too few areas and cause distracting parallelization.
>>
>> Ultimately, these problems might result from any number of causes. There
>> might be structural problems with the manner the RAI Area is divided
>> into working groups, issues with chartering or focusing of the efforts,
>> snarls intrinsic to the technology, personnel problems at any number
>> of levels, questions of participant energy, or any of a number of
>> combinations thereof.
>>
>> What we'd like to do is kick off a discussion about ways that we can
>> make RAI work better. As a part of that discussion we are reserving one
>> of our precious timeslots for a RAI Area open meeting in Minneapolis (at
>> least the Friday afternoon experiment will give us one more slot than
>> usual). In order to help set an agenda for that meeting, we'd like to
>> invite any comments and discussion on this list ([e-mail]),
>> or if necessarily in private correspondence to Jon and I. We're
>> interested to learn to what degree people believe there are problems
>> that need to be addressed, and what sorts of problems and potential
>> solutions the community can identify.
>>
>> Cullen Jennings
>> Jon Peterson
>> RAI Area Directors
>> _______________________________________________
>> RAI mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
>
> _______________________________________________
> RAI mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai

_______________________________________________
RAI mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai