Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

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

 



Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 5/3/2013 7:29 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote:
> 
>> Provide WG Chairs the monitoring tools they need to be proactive - Action 
>> Tracker, what do I need to do today data tracker  views.  Same for AD.
>>
>> Same for authors and their mentors, if any.
> 
> The IETF already provides pretty good tools.  They could always be 
> better, of course, but they almost certainly aren't essential.

   That much is probably true.

> The issue with providing management assistance is to focus on managing 
> the work.  That's an organizational orientation, not just a tracking 
> thing.  It's about getting clarity of the work to be done and of getting 
> folks to do the work of contributing, writing, reviewing, and debating 
> in a timely manner, and achieving forward progress in a timely manner.

   That much is true.

> Few working groups have enough detail to juggle to make this something 
> that hinges on the tools.

   That, alas, is not true.

   I subscribe to a number of WG lists where they find a issue tracker
_quite_ essential to their work. And to most folks, the issue tracker
output is more confusing than helpful: you're never quite sure which
issue number something belongs under.

   The lists I subscribe to have as work items drafts where nothing
happens until IETF-week deadlines (and sometimes not even then!).

   It seems _very_ likely that some automated tools to point out the
inactivity would help...

--
John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>




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