Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

Benoit Claise <bclaise@xxxxxxxxx> · Sun, 05 May 2013 14:17:46 +0200

    Hi Jouni,

      Jari,

This was an interesting (and a needed) writeup. I also want to share
my view as an IETF newbie who has had a chance to experience IETF
document process a few times. Sorry for chiming in late..

For the most part I got the feeling that we have the right tools and
a working process already in place. It is mostly about how we treat
the process and adjust our habits to it.

The thing I dislike is when you ship a camel into IESG and a horse
comes out.. and everybody is like "what happened?" ;-) My approach
would be simple. If a document gets x DISCUSSes out of y or even a
single DISCUSS would substantially change the technical solution of
the document, ship it back to the WG - always, no questions asked. The
document is not ready and we are wasting IESG's time. 

    Agreed. This is something that the IESG should be more often.

      The technical
work belongs to the WG. Obviously this begs for a much higher
threshold for an AD to give a document a DISCUSS instead of a COMMENT.

Then about the habits. From my limited experience, folks are used to
the think "the document will anyway be reviewed, reworked and can be
finished in the IESG" and that occasionally shows. I want to believe
this habit changes if the document must be ready for real before
leaving the WG.

The cross area directorate reviews are great and should have even
more weight than they have today. And here is what I would like to
see to change slightly. The directorate & expert reviews should all
be done before sending the document out of the WG into the IESG.
Probably the IETF LC should also happen before sending the document
out of the WG.

    Agreed.

    This is a practical solution for the previous email I sent:

    When the write-up is done, the WG perception is that
      their work is done.

      Some reviews that come after that, and specifically the IESG ones,
      are considered as coming from trouble-makers.

      We should change that perception.

      I'm all in favor to keep the WG involved for any reviews:
      directorate, IETF LC, IESG. Currently, we lack consistency wrt
      where the feedback is sent (we're working on that). Now, I feel
      it's going to imply more follow-up work for the ADs as the
      discussions might take longer. This is where the document shepherd
      could help.

    Regards, Benoit

My Z$0.02,
	Jouni

On May 1, 2013, at 6:33 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

        I wrote a blog article about how we do a fairly significant amount of reviews and changes in the late stages of the IETF process. Next week the IESG will be having a retreat in Dublin, Ireland. As we brought this topic to our agenda, Pete and I wanted to raise the issue here and call for feedback & ideas for improving the situation with all of you.

http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/05/balancing-the-process/

Jari