Re: [RAI] Making RAI work better

["Francois Audet" <[e-mail]>]

I think you are correct about being CPU-bound, but I also
think the solution to the problem is actually really simple.

Instead of having group of enlighted individuals with the power
to say "not now" or "no", it would be a lot more efficient if 
individual authors were held accountable to finishing their draft
in a timely manner.

To do this, we would need to:
1) Respect the target set-up in the Charter. 
2) If a document becomes dormant or too inactive, it would be pulled
   out or given to another editor.
3) An editor should not be allowed to drive too many working group
   documents at the same time. I'm not sure exactly how to do this
   because the number may vary per author (depending on their
   time allocation as individuals to the IETF and capacity). Perhaps
   the chairs should have discretion on allowing an author to be editor
   based on the pace of progress on the other documents for which he is
   an editor.

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> Behalf Of Adam Roach
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 19:32
> To: Dean Willis
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [RAI] Making RAI work better
> 
> I think the problem is that we're constantly increasing the 
> number of threads (documents) we're working on, while the 
> number of CPU cores (key
> participants) remains fairly constant. We're CPU bound. 
> Increasing the number of processes (working groups) so that 
> they can each have fewer threads in them (but still the same 
> number of threads overall) doesn't change the fundamental 
> problem that we're simply out of CPU cycles.
> 
> Given that we don't know how to increase the number of 
> processor cores, the only thing we can usefully play around 
> with is thread scheduling. Do we throw all the threads on the 
> processor cores at once, so that they all make progress all 
> the time, but take five to ten years each to complete? Or do 
> we strictly limit the number of threads so that each one 
> completes fairly rapidly and gets out of the way for the next one?
> 
> I think the latter approach would be far more productive. 
> When I move between work items, I know I have to swap 
> information back into my head to just have the context to 
> think about the related problems. For the past few years, 
> most of my IETF work has been characterized by thrashing, in 
> which I spend much more time re-learning the context for a 
> piece of work than I do actually thinking about the problems 
> related to that work. This is 100% because there's too much 
> going on, and it's all too tightly interconnected to focus on 
> small niches.
> 
> Robert has pointed out that we can never say "no," only say 
> "not now." I agree with this statement; however, I would go 
> one step further to argue that we don't even say "not now" 
> nearly often enough. And we've become highly inefficient for it.
> 
> /a
> 
> Dean Willis wrote:
> >
> > The main problem we have with RAI is that some of our 
> working groups 
> > have dozens of documents. Both the brainspace of the WG and the 
> > attentions of the management team (aka, Keith and I, for SIP) are  
> > consumed with swapping between documents trying to give "fair" 
> > treatment to all. Hence, the urgent is balanced against the 
> important, 
> > and we end up more and more fragmented.
> >
> > We have huge, eternal working groups that don't focus well. Our 
> > meetings can't focus, our mailing lists can't focus, our management 
> > can't focus, and our participants can't focus. We're like 
> > three-year-olds in a three-ring circus, too busy gawking at 
> the other 
> > clowns to get any work done.
> >
> > Several years ago, I proposed a reorganization (slides at 
> > 
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/slides/raiarea-3/sld1.htm). The 
> > consensus at the time was simply to have more rigorous chairs. We 
> > added Keith, who is  quite a rigorous chair, and it helped, but not 
> > enough. We've also tried more organized chairs, like Mary, in 
> > SIPPING.  Again, this helped, but not enough.
> >
> > I maintain that what is needed is to reduce the size of a 
> chair's job 
> > so that it can be done well in a reasonable 4-6 hours per 
> week, rather 
> > than done badly with a workload more like 30 hours per week. The 
> > easiest way to do this is to divide the problems up across more 
> > chairs. Of course, getting rid of a few problems would help too.
> >
> > Towards this end, I recently suggested a reorganization (see 
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip/current/msg23692.html).
> >
> > This reorg proposed replacing SIP and SIPPING with a couple 
> of smaller 
> > working groups with narrow charters, including (not nec. in 
> this order):
> >
> > 1) RAI Maintenance: Essential corrections to existing RFCs. No 
> > semantic or functional changes, just bug fixes.
> >
> > 2) SIP Draft Standard: Whatever is needed to move the SIP 
> spec family 
> > to draft standard
> >
> > 3) Real-Time Operations: Deals with the questions of how to do "x" 
> > with SIP and related specs
> >
> > 4) Real-Time Policies: Session policies, SAML, etc.
> >
> > 5) real-Time Identity Expression, for which I proposed a charter:
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip/current/msg23899.html
> >
> > There are some other things that SIP is close to finishing 
> and should 
> > just be left there. I suspect the same is true of SIPPING. 
> When done, 
> > we close those nuthouses down.
> >
> > Big, complex documents that have a lot of things depending on them 
> > belong in their own dedicated working groups with a dedicated 
> > management team.
> >
> > Related sets of documents with tight interdependencies also 
> belong in 
> > their own working groups. For example, the SIP Consent 
> Framework and 
> > the half-dozen drafts detailing how to use contact-lists 
> for various 
> > SIP requests  might have made for a reasonably chartered 
> working group 
> > with a reasonable 2-year lifespan. A working group that 
> could actually 
> > finish, go away, and free up resources for new work.
> >
> > Here's how I envision this working: If somebody dreams up a new SIP 
> > extension that does something the RTOps group can't figure 
> out how to 
> > do reasonably with what we have, then we run a BOF and see if it is 
> > worth working on. If so, then we charter a working group, 
> If not, we 
> > either pursue AD-sponsored individual informational 
> (assuming it does 
> > not need to be a STD track), or we don't work on it.  If we 
> have more 
> > WGs than meeting slots, some WGs don't meet, and we don't 
> charter new 
> > ones until the schedule is relieved.
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > Dean
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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