On Friday, August 15, 2014, t.p. wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lou Berger" <lberger@xxxxxxxx>
To: "t.p." <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "IETF Discussion Mailing List" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 1:06 PM
On 8/15/2014 7:04 AM, t.p. wrote:
> Alia
>
> What I saw you say was
> "One driver for this reorganization is to get to "right-size" working
> groups
> that are large
> enough to have critical mass and not so large as to have poor
> signal-to-noise for participants or suffer from disengagement."
>
> Trouble is, while there are some WG in the IETF that suffer from this,
> arguably the list we are on now, I would not place any of the Routing
WG
> in that category. Historically, MPLS would have been in the days of
> MPLS-TP but those days are long gone so unless and until another SDO
> wants to crank up the volume on a Routing WG, I fail to see it as
> justification for a reorganisation.
>
> And yes, I think that this is an IETF matter, not just one for a
Routing
> list.
It is both IETF matter and IETF area matter. However, the WG community with their chair should always find solutions that follow the IETF vision (not only the industry sector vision).
Tom,
Which "this" are you referring to:
disengagement/signal-to-noise/bystanders/tourists/etc., the rational for
the routing are reorganization, or the reorganization as a whole?
<tp>
Lou
I was referring back to all of the quote I gave from Alia. I am aware
of Alia's stated objectives, to whit,
"improving the quality, speed, and
experience of getting work done in the IETF Routing Area. "
The routing area should think about not only work done but also the work coming into each WG (i.e adopted work by WG). I know one WG in this area having many work adopted while the WG size is small so reviews/analysis are with low quality. I suggest that IETF focus on adopted New work to match each WG ability in terms of achieving its previous work milestones. As considering work flow control with priority and time management.
but then suffer from a disconnect when I read about reorganising the
WGs.
On the routing-discussion list, the focus seemed to be on changing the
MPLS WG which, to me, seems not to need any serious change at this point
in time.
The focus is to change our work in IETF becoming more about functions than about protocols. The internet function design is more important than sticking our internet to protocols which may be old and not interoperable.
It was stated that there is insufficient time at an IETF
meeting for all those who wanted to present their I-Ds to MPLS to
present to their I-Ds; other Areas solve this by not presenting I-Ds,
rather than reorganising:-)
We need to help guide new working methods and guide new I-Ds coming in. That may be done by reorganising each IETF area.
As a chair in a different context, I have reorganised, and seen the
benefits thereof happen, but I have also worked in an environment where
the culture was to reorganise every year, and really reorganise every
few years - chaos, I would call that. So, I am sceptical that any
benefits will accrue in this case.
In IETF WGs there are allowance for no work flow control/analysis (which that management method does not prevent chaos.) However, Reorganise IETF community/area is good each five years. It can become a chaos if done frequently and even if the management have high performance.
AB