Re: [RAI] RAI processes for handling work effectively

Hi Brian,

It's not clear to me what scope you intend for the mini-wg. Does it handle the "higher-level constructions"? Is it responsible for breaking the interdependency logjams? Something else?

What keeps the min-wg from becoming the union of all interested parties from all the existing wgs? (Or was that what you intended?)

Thanks!

Ben.

On 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