Apart from reducing WG there is the underlying need to also decline work. Not just how many points of organisation: decline to address all submitted and almost any problems.
Without any implied criticism of the SNMP mib people, I posit that a body of review work could be shed by asking them to form a MIB forum and self certify. I'm not proposing this formally, it's a nice example of a well formed problem space the IETF could (gently) push out of the nest.
As to the benefits of declining work, open question. It's upsides might not be big enough.
G
On Thu, 29 Jun 2023, 06:33 Brian E Carpenter, <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Roman,
Yes, I saw that. But really this is a very old story - I can't remember how many years ago it was that I noticed that we have around 120-130 WGs all the time, and that alone is enough to explain the heavy workload at the IESG level. What I was trying to convey is that to materially change the workload, without reducing quality, it's very hard to find a solution that doesn't including materially reducing the number of active WGs.
We can tune the current system, as suggested by draft-rsalz-less-ad-work, but it won't change the fundamentals.
Regards
Brian
On 29-Jun-23 01:46, Roman Danyliw wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Responding to the point of WG closures -- the I2NSF and SecEvent WG participants deserve recognition for having finishing their planned deliverables and their WGs closing recently.
>
> 06-21-2023 -- I2NSF
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/5T-ANgPM_8xQj4_QM092_OdG6oA/
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/0XFkwdVfrglBtSyZyAOWspQNLYY/
>
> 06-27-2023 -- SecEvent
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/id-event/ASlT-O5wmkP-kF1MVbRVE04kltA/
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/51MWV5qA-BiHTh5z8_33RyCCkU8/
>
> Roman
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
>> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 8:22 PM
>> To: Warren Kumari <warren@xxxxxxxxxx>; tom petch
>> <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: AD review delays
>>
>> A simple observation - since I sent this a few days ago, 5 WGs have been
>> created and none closed. I expect the problem raised will only get worse.
>>
>> Regards
>> Brian
>>
>> On 22-Jun-23 11:02, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>> 5: the time from consensus is declared until it is sent to the IESG?
>>>
>>> Considering that our process makes this a one-person bottleneck for a
>>> person who is supposedly a part-time volunteer with a day job too, and
>>> considering that we have all (I hope) studied queueing theory for
>>> single-server systems, I'm very unsympathetic to complaints about this
>>> compared to all the other steps in the process.
>>>
>>> If you want to reduce the mean response time of this queue, the best
>>> way would be to send it less work. As long as the IETF has ~130 active
>>> working groups and a manageable size of IESG, i.e. about 10 WGs per
>>> AD, this isn't going to happen.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Brian
>>>
>>> On 22-Jun-23 01:26, Warren Kumari wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 4:33 AM, tom petch <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 19/06/2023 17:47, Daniel Migault wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I tend to think it is not so much the number of days or months as long
>> as there is a common understanding of that delay. If one estimates X, the other
>> part estimates Y as long as X differs from Y it is likely to generate frustration -
>> chances for X to match Y are likely slim. On the other hand being simply
>> informed it is going to take Z, even Z being greater than X, this is likely to be
>> fine.
>>>> While the context of this thread is the delay from AD, this can be easily
>> generalized in my opinion to most of the IETF process.
>>>>
>>>> Generalising to everything a customer expects, a dictum of marketing is
>> that a customer is dissatisfied when reality does not match their expectations
>> so change their expectations. I do not know what drove the start of the thread
>> but dissatisfied customers could be one such in which case the aim of the
>> thread could be to reset expectations.
>>>>
>>>> My expectations are based on several decades of involvement in the
>> process with its ups and downs. The problem used to be the length of time
>> from IESG approval to the publication of the RFC and that has been fixed - I do
>> not know how but it has AFAICT. Perhaps that has now put a spotlight on
>> another part of the process.
>>>>
>>>> For me, though, it is the delays in the WG post adoption of an I-D that are
>> the greatest disappointment, and that could be a reflection on the time an AD
>> has to affect that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Erm, could you elaborate on the above? Are you meaning:
>>>> 1: the time after a WG formally adopts a document until the draft-ietf-wg-
>> foo-bar-00 comes out?
>>>> 2: the time from when a WG adopts a document until it enters WGLC?
>>>> 3: the time from when a WG adopts a document until it leaves WGLC?
>>>> 4: the time from entering WGLC until consensus is declared?
>>>> 5: the time from consensus is declared until it is sent to the IESG?
>>>> 6: something else?
>>>> 7: all of the above?
>>>>
>>>> Many of these times are (largely) outside the ADs control (other than
>> choosing more active chairs, cajoling the WG, stomping their feet, contributing
>> text, etc).
>>>>
>>>> W
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tom Petch
>>>>
>>>> Yours,
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 12:01 PM Salz, Rich <rsalz=
>> 40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I do not know where you get the month from. I was
>>>> thinking of teh
>>>>
>>>> freeze on I-D submission as being the start of the run up and perhaps
>> a fortnight after to get over jet lag, complete the commitments made during
>> the meeting, catch up on the day job and so on.
>>>>
>>>> My misreading of your comment. Thanks for the explanation.
>>>>
>>>>
