Re: [RAI] RAI processes for handling work effectively

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Thu, 18 July 2013 13:55 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 6F09911E8135 for <rai@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 06:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.237
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.237 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 Dt2r-D0lwj9j for <rai@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 06:55:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0C8E11E8146 for <rai@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 06:55:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.51]) by qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 1njM1m00516LCl055pvrXy; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 13:55:51 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 1pvr1m00a3ZTu2S3SpvrTp; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 13:55:51 +0000
Message-ID: <51E7F3E6.7030308@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 09:55:50 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rai@ietf.org
References: <51C157BA.70509@ericsson.com> <51E7D81A.5000008@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <51E7D81A.5000008@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1374155751; bh=rMV84NXl8TSMyYpuBrxkqM7mWumcOsf+8ge9ob4svJ4=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=HN+NAsluu7rZytFOk3/Go39gfVheRmxxmo3NiUF2RPnxS6j7M/KXaWlP/gA2dxDb1 ds+V8ZmCIJ5OI1SlOAZz6GuR6nM3mJ8gdF4qty5xneGYzbQp/4wi1Y+TmoUUVPTN/3 N1yo9OEtIBNSuYhYRAtVBw91Vgxv8/PygN8c/NYTRwUr0nD2Ax75wwyDb3N+BOXezM dsHATI1M5MRvBVxmBxwStKTiPQX4i22+LYVxccFDzH/rONoUNft9FoqNFFVs4iCVik EjNXk8r014qwAbFPDW8oUttBWFCDkxqHcVue9UC8sRjtb1jRt3vX9IBLh8zDSOzoNv Olz6zupaRPfRA==
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: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 13:55:57 -0000

Harald,

What you say makes some sense to me.

But if we were to act on it then I think we need to replace some WGs 
with review panels. (We have an SDP directorate, but I don't think that 
is a sufficient replacement for mmusic.) And so we will need some clear 
processes for review panels. How would we process drafts that would 
otherwise have been handled through the standanding wg? Would they be AD 
sponsored? And we may need to schedule meeting sessions for review 
panels too.

This seems like it would need to be an ietf-wide change, not just RAI. 
(But maybe we could pilot it in RAI.)

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 7/18/13 7:57 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Gonzalo,
>
> let me make a radical proposition....
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> (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?
>
> To my mind, SCTP-in-SDP could have been a working group. Once there are
> two working implementations that can successfully negotiate SCTP, its
> work is done and can shut down.
>
> Trickle ICE could have been another. The day we have 2 implementations
> interworking - done.
>
> Both need to have competent review and input from people who are aware
> of the architectural issues of SDP, and the people who provide that
> input need to talk to each other so that each reviewer is in sync with
> the others.
>
> But that isn't the role of a WG. It's a review panel.
>
>          Harald
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RAI mailing list
> RAI@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
>