On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 5:10 PM, George Michaelson <ggm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
Well, there is also the signal that we keep hearing from the community that we should be encouraging and fostering new works and newcomers to the IETF.
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.
Possibly — although I suspect that the amount of work that that would require massively outweighs the IETF cost of processing SNMP MIBS — largely because I cannot think of the last time the IESG saw a MIB document. I'm guessing that I've seen one, or perhaps two, but I really cannot remember any…
W
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.GOn Thu, 29 Jun 2023, 06:33 Brian E Carpenter, <brian.e. > wrote:carpenter@ gmail. com 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@ietf. > On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenterorg
>> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 8:22 PM
>> To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari. >; tom petchnet
>> <daedulus@btconnect. >com
>> Cc: ietf@ietf. org
>> 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@btconnect. com
>> <mailto:daedulus@btconnect. >> wrote:com
>>>>
>>>> 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@ <mailto:40akamai.dmarc. ietf. org com@ >>dmarc. ietf. org
>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
