Re: [RAI] RAI processes for handling work effectively

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Harald,
At 04:57 18-07-2013, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>let me make a radical proposition....

http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/ietf55/Revolutionizing%20the%20IETF.pdf :-)

>Standing working groups are useless. All of them.
>
>What we have been doing in the IETF for 10+ years is to create 
>things that we call working groups, which sometimes are used as 
>places to do work, but really are places where people go to get a 
>review and a stamp of approval.

Yes.

>This isn't the role of a working group. It's a review panel.
>
>Working groups need a task they can complete. They need chairs that 
>are willing and able to get the hard questions asked, get a decision 
>out, and PUBLISH.
>Review panels need to have competent people on them, and they need 
>to be able to say NO at need.

It is not easy for Chairs to get the hard questions asked.  It's not 
easy for a review panel to say no unless they have some authority.  I 
don't think it is a matter of the people not being competent; there 
are also social issues.

>The drivers for these 2 kinds of activity are orthogonal-to-opposed, 
>they are not aligned.
>And by using WG procedures for both kinds, we are doing a disservice 
>to ourselves.
>
>I'd suggest that among the requirements for a working group to be 
>formed - AND for it to continue to exist - there should be:
>
>- A definition of the problem that needs solving
>- A definition of the work that needs to be done
>- A sign that one can look at in order to tell that it's finished

Yes.

>(Picking on MMUSIC not because it's the only one, but because I'm 
>working in it at the moment)
>
>In contrast, the MMUSIC working group includes statements like 
>"Various extensions to SDP will be pursued to remedy the most urgent 
>of SDP's shortcomings". How do we tell that we'll achieve that?

The working group could be recharted instead of having open-ended 
statements in its charter.

Regards,
-sm