On 12/26/14 8:52 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: > There are a few things we can do. Some things that I've been trying to > do in Routing include: > a) discouragement of progressing many use-case and requirements drafts. > We had drifted towards having WGs producing some to help > articulate what > needed to be done - but then more and more appear and only some > actually provide more useful feedback to the architecture or > protocol. I > would rather see WGs produce things that can be implemented with the > necessary context than spend years working on use-cases and > requirements. > I'm past the waterfall model of software development. > > b) Encourage WG chairs to think about the need for ACTIVE consensus rather > than passive. If there isn't the enthusiasm to review and improve > a draft or > implement it, then does it really need to be an RFC? > > c) Better and early cross-WG review once a draft is adopted as a WG draft. > Well-written drafts without serious issues are much faster to > manage, review, > and progress. > > d) Be willing to let WGs fail - by also letting them just get on with > doing solutions. These are all things I'd love to see implemented across the organization, as well as raising the bar on BOFs - I've seen some ADs put a massive amount of effort into BOFs that are held around ideas that aren't fully-formed (it's not necessarily that they're bad ideas, but rather the problem is that the proposals are awfully immature). I've been trying to decide what I think of the proposed reorganization and I guess I'm neutral on it - it seems that the workload problem isn't necessarily going to go away with a reorganization, but that the two problems (structural efficiency and manageable workload) would need to be tackled in parallel. I think Alia's list is a good start on the workload issue. Melinda