John's questions, here, go to the basic challenge we constantly face
when there are demands for more resources: Are they really needed, and
if they are, why? If they are not needed, is there a deeper problem that
needs to be addressed?
From external observation, the IETF deals with the issues in an
open-loop manner. While I've no doubt that individuals on the IESG have
criteria they apply, we do not get to see an underlying basis for
consuming more resources, other than that they've been asked for. Seen
from the outside, it does appear that deeper consideration could be
quite helpful.
When a working group asks for time, there is already some evaluation of
whether the request is appropriate. Today, that evaluation is pretty
subjective and internal. Consider making the evaluation, itself, part
of the feedback a wg ought to get about how well or poorly it is doing.
Simple thought: Imagine having a running tally, for each working group,
that assessed its current status on a 5 point scale, such as:
+2: Stellar
+1: Very good shape
0: On target
-1: Behind the curve
-2: In very serious trouble
With some rather simple process for determining this, such as progress
according to schedule -- because, after all, milestones are plentiful
and kept up to date, right? -- rate of opening and closing Issues, tone
of mailing list discussion, and rate of I-D generation and improvement,
or somesuch.
Meeting requests should not only include an agenda but a statement of
intended progress. What outputs are expected from the meeting and why
is it reasonable to expect that they will happen?
John's point about mailing list vs. meeting time is fundamental. The
IETF model has always been to have primary work done on the list. If
that has changed, we need to consider the change carefully. For
example, meeting time is not inclusive. Only the privileged few with
funding and job time can attend. (Meeting time also cannot be
sufficient for any serious work, even with an extra day.)
d/
John C Klensin wrote:
One other observation: To the extent that the reason for doing
this is, as indicated in your note, "...Several WGs are not able
to get as much meeting time as they need to progress their
work...", I would encourage the IESG to very carefully evaluate
what is actually going on above and beyond whether having more
of Friday available would help with scheduling. For example,
have these WGs shifted from getting most of their work done on
mailing lists to doing almost everything in meetings and, if so,
is that a problem that needs fixing?
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf