Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 6/25/2008 9:19 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 6/25/08 11:44 AM, "Lakshminath Dondeti" <ldondeti@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I would like to hear others' opinions (I was going to put together a
draft with some ideas on how we might define these roles, but I want to
hear others' thoughts before I do that) on this topic.

I think your points are valid, but I'm not sure what the
effect would be if you controlled for quality coming out
of the working groups.  That is to say, I think that
occasionally working groups are coming to consensus on
bad documents or bad ideas, and that the incidence of that
is increasing.

Well that is a disturbing trend as well. A long while ago now, one of the then ADs mentioned that he needed to put a DISCUSS on a few successive MSEC documents that I was shepherding and mentioned that he wants to have a chat with the chairs on the quality of documents that we are forwarding. I asked him to come to one of our meetings and explain the expectations directly to the WG. That never happened.

But that is the kind of direction or steering an area director might do if working groups are indeed producing bad documents and advancing bad ideas. Presumably they are several cases here, viz., going against charter or just being plain terrible at writing interoperable specifications.

Pushing a document back to the WG is actually a better thing, I am beginning to think. Sure that may introduce delays initially as we learn how to operate in that mode, but the process of writing specifications is more transparent and more consensus based than in the current model of operation.

One of the problems with the current model is that comments toward the end of the process, either AD's or reviewers', are weighted more than comments during the working group discussions, at least in some cases.

If that's true it once again raises the
very familiar question of picking up quality problems
earlier in the process.  Actually, that latter question
applies regardless.

Yes, I have heard it mentioned several times before, but I haven't seen any concrete steps to achieve that. I am now making the case that if a document makes it beyond the shepherding AD and put on the IESG telechat, changes to the text should be relatively a big deal. There can be changes, but they should be reviewed by the WG.

In some cases, there have been bitter disputes about taking change control from authors and putting it in the hands of a WG, but the current model toward the end of the process seems to put change control in too few hands. That is what I am trying to highlight.

regards,
Lakshminath


Melinda


_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]