(catching up after a few days in meetings, but it will still take a while to read everything)
Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian,
1. Apparently you missed the extended, public exchanges about these
issues, over the last 3 years...
Here's a quick list of things that have been done. It's written in somewhat high level terms, but there is substance behind each of these items. It doesn't mean that we're done or that we're complacent, but accusing ourselves of inaction is plain wrong.
First point - I unaccountably forget to mention that we agreed on and published an IETF Mission Statement (RFC 3935). That was a direct response to the first "root problem" described in RFC 3774.
I did not say there had been no activity. I said that we had done nothing about the issues currently under discussion.
So i will ask you and everyone else to consider your list with respect to quality, timeliness and relevance.
Most of the actions you cite may affect some of the problematic aspects of timeliness... sometimes. But that is all. Here's an exercise you might want to consider: Take the list in the Problems RFC and try to reconcile your list against its.
I do intend to go through that RFC to look for issues that haven't been addressed. If people would stop submitting drafts for publication and sending technical email, I might get a chance to do so. But actually, I do prefer to give priority to the IETF's work product rather than to metawork.
Tools team ... Many operational details of document review process ...
These two are about better administration. Improving administrative process is fine, but has nothing to do with problems in the "semantics" of the process.
It does not affect quality or relevance. And it does not do much about timeliness, in terms of making working groups go faster, reducing inappropriateintentional blocks by ADs, or any of the things that are the meat of IETF work.
I disagree. Removing artefacts makes it much easier to look at essentials. We work now with very convenient hyperlinked agendas, ballots and comments available on line, etc. On the few occasions when I've had to go back to more primitive methods, I have found it very distracting and much harder to quickly and fairly review material. Better tools improve quality and timeliness. For relevance, see below.
and the General Area review team are operational.
And since it is carefully targeted for the END of the working group effort, how will this improve quality, timeliness and relevance?
Even late reviews can improve quality, and speaking for myself, their availability makes it much less likely that I will defer a ballot, so they improve timeliness. I'm not really sure on balance what you mean by relevance. Relevance to what? Judged by who?
But I, Dave and ICAR blew the early review issue so far.)
Since this was an effort directly targeting quality and timeliness -- and especially since early reviews seem to have succeeded at gaining IETF rough consensus as a Good Thing to do -- do you have an theory about the failure to get this going, or better still, how to get it to succeed?
I think the answer will be baby steps - even with ICAR's modest goals, it seemed that we couldn't achieve liftoff. The IESG is thinking about one baby step (pls wait until the notes from our retreat come out).
Education team in place to continuously educate leaders and participants
And you should note that I cited that elsewhere in the thread.
Whether the actual content of the training is likely to have any impact on quality, timeliness and relevance is worth assessing. Yes, it ought to, but how are we going to figure out whether it does?
Very hard. But the EDU team is not complacent either.
Regular reviews of RFC Editor and IANA performance in place... New procedures for liaison handling defined... Administrative support unit being created by ISOC...
And you think these affect core issues of IETF utility to the Internet community?
Yes. The fact that we are slow in getting RFCs out or in making routine parameter assignments is damaging to the IETF because it makes our users (implementers and other standards bodies) unhappy. Efficient handling of liaisons from other bodies is also very important lubrication for the whole community. And the admin support is tremendously important - partly to make sure that meetings, mailing lists and document approvals continue to happen, and partly to free up enough time for *me* to do my job as Chair and worry about the things you want me to worry about. My personal estimate is that about 50% of the issues on my current issues list will be handed off to the IAD when (s)he is up and running.
You think that these changes will have any effect at all on better IETF participation or producing timely specifications of better quality and relevance?
Please explain how.
Again, relevance is in the eye of the beholder. My quick answer on relevance is what it's always been - the most important single action we ever take is chartering a new WG. If we blow that, we risk doing irrelevant work. The other part of the answer is that it's usually the market that tells us afterwards what was relevant. But note, the IESG just spent two days in meetings at the ITU - largely to understand *relevant* requirements from that community.
So, I think improving operational tools and taking admin burdens away from the engineering leadership will help us significantly by giving us more time to think carefully about what work to charter (which directly impacts participation) and to make the engineering parts of our process work better.
However, we depend tremendously on skilful and dedicated WG chairs and participants. Without them, no process and no administration will succeed.
You might consider using the Problems RFC as a reference guide for directing such an assessment.
Proposals for upgrading/streamlining standards track in discussion (i.e. newtrk and specifically the ISD proposal, but there's certainly more to do in newtrk)
Another derailed activity. Another activity that has nothing to do with quality, timeliness or relevance.
Go ahead, explain how it does.
John Klensin answered this one.
Explain how current document labeling practises hurt the IETF's utility to the Internet community.
Actually, RFC 3774 dinged the 3 stage standards process, not me.
Explain how the utility of the IETF to the community will be improved by our fixing this.
Indeed, this something the IESG also discussed in its retreat; and you've seem John's answer.
Brian, we need to distinguish activity from progress.
Now there's a truism.
We need to look for the issues that are at the core of the IETF's problems.
As I said, in the last 3+ years, we have mostly chosen not to do that.
On the contrary, we're working through them. But personally I'm not panicking, nor am I complacent.
Brian
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf