Bernard, I think your proposal is worth thinking about. The current BOF process is very on/off in its nature. One of the problems that it is causing is that when work is not far enough, a BOF or WG cannot be established. This in turns leave the perception that the IETF is completely ignoring the topic. In reality, a denied WG/BOF might mean anything ranging from "go away with your stupid idea" to "this is very important and interesting, but please do <X> first so that the WG can be chartered or BOF held". We try to give the right perception, of course, but sometimes its hard to convince people who can only observe the existence/non-existence of an official activity. Jari Romascanu, Dan (Dan) kirjoitti: > */Bernard,/* > *//* > */Speaking as a participant in both the IETF and IEEE 802, there are > many things that I like in the CFI / Study Group process of IEEE. Your > proposal goes in the direction of solving one of the > problems I perceive in the IETF processes which is the lack of > repeatability and predictability (again speaking as a participant). I > like it. Yet, there are some differences:/* > *//* > */- The five criteria in the IEEE would not apply as is. I am not sure > that 'broad market potential' should be there at all, or should be as > strong a factor as it is in the IEEE. Same with economic feasibility, > which in the IEEE often refers to the costs of hardware based > implementations/* > */- 'Measuring interest' works differently in the IETF than in the > IEEE which is very much physical participation based, and where > participants and company votes are dully counted and registered in CFI > meetings as proof of interest. /* > *//* > */Dan/* > > *//* > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_aboba@xxxxxxxxxxx] > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:52 PM > *To:* ietf@xxxxxxxx > *Subject:* Reforming the BOF Process (was Declining the ifare bof > for Chicago) > > The recent discussion on the IFARE BOF has raised more fundamental > issues > about the IETF BOF process. Rather than letting discussion > continue on the > SAAG list, it would seem better for this discussion to occur on > the IETF list. > > > Speaking as a former AD, it can be a very tough call to say > yes/no to > > a BOF. Unfortunately, there is often interest, but interest is > most > > definitely not enough. There needs to be more than interest. > > It should be understood that this is a feature of the IETF process > that is > not necessarily held in common with other SDOs. > > For example, within IEEE 802 the initial meeting is termed a "Call > for Interest" because the determination of interest is the major > focus; > writing a charter/PAR is > not. > > Assuming that sufficient interest exists, a study group is formed, > whose > sole purpose is to write a Project Authorization Request (PAR) > (equivalent of a charter), and demonstrate that the proposed work > satisfies the "5 criteria": > > 1. Broad Market Potential > a. Broad sets of applicability. > b. Multiple vendors and numerous users. > c. Balanced costs > 2. Compatibility with existing standards. > 3. Distinct Identity. > 4. Technical feasibility > a. Demonstrated system feasibility > b. Proven technology, reasonable testing > c. Confidence in reliability > 5. Economic Feasibility > > > There needs to be a reasonable chance of a positive, forward-moving > > outcome. > > I believe that this ascribes more predictive value to the BOF > process than > is warranted by experience. Quite a few deployed technologies have > originated from BOFs that the IESG judged to not have a likely > "forward-moving > outcome", while many unproductive working groups arose from > successful > BOFs. The reality is that BOFs do not much have predictive > value, if only > because the BOF process does not much resemble the WG process, so that > the success dynamics cannot easily be ascertained as a result. > > > Yes, I* opinions are afforded special status. They are our chosen > > leadership, and with leadership comes responsibility. Responsibility > > to be sure that if the work goes forward, it is well scoped, has a > > reasonable likelihood of success, etc. And please remember, the IETF > > is a meritocracy. So please don't raise the "I* has special status" > > issue as if it were some kind of unfair or biased way of doing > things. > > Again, the IESG role in the BOF process represents a choice on the > part > of the IETF. It is possible to envisage other approaches that > could yield > outcomes as good or better while providing better accountability and > transparency. > > For example, by restricting the function of an initial BOF to a > determination of > interest and a decision to form/not form a study group, the > opportunities > for unfairness and bias can be reduced. Once the study group > had produced a charter and documentation of the formation > criteria, the review > of these documents could proceed with more information than is > typically > available as the result of a (potentially delayed) 2nd BOF. > Also, the > review could utilize existing procedures for ensuring transparency and > accountability, such as an open review process and documentation of > DISCUSS comments. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf