Internet-Draft M. Wasserman, Editor Document: draft-ietf-problem-process-00.txt Wind River Expires: November 2003 May 2003 IETF Problem Resolution Processes Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [RFC2026]. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract This document suggests processes to address the problems identified in the IETF Problem Statement. This document decomposes each of the problems described in the problem statement into a few areas for improvement, categorizes those areas into longer-term and near-term problems, and suggests processes to address each area. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 1 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 Table of Contents Status of this Memo...............................................1 Abstract..........................................................1 Copyright Notice..................................................1 Table of Contents.................................................2 1 Introduction..............................................3 2 IETF Core Values..........................................4 2.1 Non-Core Values...........................................6 3 Building on our Success...................................7 4 Problem Decomposition.....................................9 4.1 Decomposition of Mission Problem..........................9 4.2 Decomposition of the Engineering Practices Problem........9 4.3 Decomposition of the Complex Problems Problem............10 4.4 Decomposition of the Engagement Problem..................10 4.5 Decomposition of the Management Scaling Problem..........11 4.6 Decomposition of the Decision Process Problem............13 4.7 Decomposition of the Preparedness Problem................13 5 Process Recommendations..................................15 5.1 Near-Term Improvements...................................15 5.1.1 Suggestions to Improve WG Quality Processes..............16 5.1.2 Suggestions to Increase the Use of Tools.................17 5.1.3 Suggestions to Improve Training..........................17 5.1.4 Suggestions to Increase WG Chair Communication...........17 5.2 Longer-term Improvements.................................17 5.2.1 IETF Improvement Working Group...........................18 5.2.1.1 Working Group Charter and Deliverables...................18 5.2.1.2 Internal WG Management...................................19 5.2.2 IETF Improvement WG Oversight............................19 5.2.2.1 IESG-Directed Approach...................................20 5.2.2.2 ISOC-Directed Approach...................................20 5.2.3 IETF Improvement WG Chair Selection......................20 6 Conclusion...............................................22 7 Security Considerations..................................23 8 Normative References.....................................23 9 Informative References...................................23 10 Acknowledgements.........................................23 11 Editor's Contact Information.............................24 12 Appendix A: Suggested Charter for the Improvement WG....25 Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 2 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 1 Introduction This document suggests processes to address several problems facing the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) that have been described in the IETF Problem Statement [IETFPROB]. This document begins with a discussion of the core values of the IETF and a reminder of the many good things about the IETF that we donĘt want to lose in the process of solving our problems. We then decompose each of the problems described in the problem statement into a few areas for improvement, and organize those areas for improvement into two categories: - Areas that can be addressed in the near-term, via discrete, minimally disruptive changes or improvements. - Areas that can only be addressed by longer-term efforts, via major changes to our organizational structure or processes. It is suggested that the IETF work on these two classes of improvements in parallel, so that we can enjoy some near-term benefits while more major, longer-term improvements are being considered and executed. Concrete suggestions are included for how we can begin or continue work on near-term improvements. The document then offers options for how to organize and manage our longer-term efforts. The IETF, through the Problem Statement Working Group (problem WG) should consider these options and make decisions about how to organize and manage our longer-term improvements. Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 3 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 2 IETF Core Values As we consider changes to the IETF processes and organizational structure, it is important to keep in mind the things about the IETF that we don't want to change -- our sense of purpose, and the core values that give the IETF its unique identity. The IETF has a rich history and tradition, full of memorable quotes that capture our spirit and values. Two of the most memorable are: "We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code." -- Dave Clark "Be conservative in what you send, liberal in what you accept." -- Jon Postel At two IESG plenary meetings in 2002, the chair of the IETF, Harald Alvestrand, presented the purpose and core values of the IETF. These presentations were well received by the community and serve as a useful basis for a discussion of our purpose and core values. At the IESG plenary in London in July 2002, it was stated that the purpose of the IETF is to "produce high quality, relevant, and timely technical standards for the Internet". Our organizational structure and processes should be judged by how well they help us to achieve that purpose. At the following IESG plenary in Atlanta, Georgia in November 2002, five core values were presented [COREVAL]: "Cares for the Internet" As its name implies, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) focuses on Internet-related activities. We care about the Internet, and our standards work and operational activities are intended to improve the utility, scalability and availability of the Internet. The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF. We want the Internet to be useful for communities that share our commitment to openness and fairness. We embrace technical concepts such as decentralized control, edge-user empowerment and sharing of resources, because those concepts resonate with the core values of the IETF community. These concepts have little to do with the technology that's possible, and much to do with the technology that we choose to create. The IETF community also cares about making the Internet model a viable business proposition. People who choose to offer Internet products and services that fit with our core values should be able to do so with maximum benefit and minimum amount of fuss. The IETF community wants the Internet to succeed because we believe that the existence of the Internet, and its influence on economics, Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 4 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 communication and education, will help us to build a better human society. "Technically Competent" We pride ourselves on our technical competence, and our processes are intended to ensure the high technical quality and utility of our standards and other documents. "Open Process" Openness is a core attribute of the IETF. Our standards and other documents are developed in an open process, which allows us to achieve wide input and review. Anyone can participate in defining Internet standards in the IETF. We do not require corporate membership. We make final decisions on mailing lists, not at face-to-face meetings, so anyone with Internet access can contribute. All IETF documents are freely available, whether they are active working documents or finished specifications. Individuals as well as working groups may submit Internet-Drafts for consideration as Internet standards. "Volunteer Core" With some honorable exceptions, the IETF community consists of people who are employed elsewhere, and much of our IETF work is directly related to the business of our employers. However, many of us take on additional roles in the IETF, beyond those directly sponsored by our employers. We participate in the IETF as individuals, because we want to work for the good of the Internet community and its inhabitants. The IETF community is committed to the continued success of the Internet, not to the continued success of the IETF itself. The IETF is only worthwhile if it can effectively produce high quality, relavent standards that benefit the Internet. Openness and individual participation are two parts of an interlocking structure that is the strength of the IETF. The openness permits all segments of the Internet community to participate, without demanding that they meet any qualifying criteria, such as belonging to a member company. The individual participation allows us to focus on a wider set of "success criteria" than the health and well-being of our individual employers. Ultimately there is no conflict between the volunteer nature of the IETF and employer-sponsored participation, because we believe that Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 5 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 the long-term survival and growth of the Internet benefits ourselves, our societies and our employers. "Rough Consensus and Running Code" It is an inherent part of the IETF culture that we base our decision making on rough consensus of the community, developed through open discussion. We also value running code as an indication of specification quality and completeness, and we require interoperable implementations for promotion in the standards process. 2.1 Non-Core Values Understanding our core values also helps us to understand the long- standing features of the IETF that we can change without compromising our values or sacrificing our unique identity. During the November 2002 IESG Plenary, Harald Alvestrand also presented the following "non-core values" [COREVAL]: - The division into WGs and Areas - The three-step standards process - The ASCII format for RFCs and I-Ds - The format of IETF meetings - The structure of WG mailing lists - The powers of the IESG and IAB These things were designed to help us achieve our goals in a way that is consistent with our core values. If they are no longer effective, we can and should change them. Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 6 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 3 Building on our Success While focusing on our operational problems, we shouldn't forget that the IETF is a very successful organization. We are responsible for some of the most widely used communications standards in the world, and we have contributed to the creation and growth of the Internet, one of the greatest technical and social achievements of our time. It is important to consider that: - Good times hide problems; - Bad times hide successes. In good times, it is easy to succeed despite operational inefficiencies, so organizations tend to ignore operational problems and focus on successes. In bad times, organizations can become overly critical of their own structure and processes, blaming the organization for problems that are actually caused by outside forces. We are currently suffering difficult times in the IETF and throughout the communications industry. The IETF should be careful not to fall into the trap of blaming our own organizational structure or processes for the effects of industry-wide changes, such as: - Economic issues in the global communications industry, which are causing increased scrutiny regarding expenses and return-on-investment. These same factors are causing job changes and uncertainty for many IETF participants. - The commercialization of the Internet, which has drastically increased the financial impacts of standardization. - The convergence of the datacom and telecom sectors of the communications industry, which has led to an influx of experienced people into the IETF with a different culture and industry perspective. Although it is important to recognize and correct the serious organizational problems currently facing the IETF, many of these problems have existed for years, and the IETF has been successful in spite of these issues. We should not overreact to these issues with sweeping revolutionary changes to the IETF structure and processes. Instead, we should focus on developing a culture of continuous operational improvement through which we can evolve our organizational structure and processes to make them more effective. We should take this opportunity to develop the mechanisms and processes that we can use to continually improve our organizational effectiveness, both in good times and bad times. The IETF currently has a lot of valuable work underway, and care should be taken not to disrupt or delay that work while we address our organizational problems. Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 7 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 The IETF is also fortunate to have a large number of extremely talented and dedicated individuals that serve in formal and informal leadership roles throughout the IETF. We should be careful not to alienate or disenfranchise our leaders and key contributors while making organizational or process changes. Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 8 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 4 Problem Decomposition The problem statement document lists seven root cause problems currently facing the IETF: - Participants in the IETF do not share a common understanding of its mission - The IETF does not consistently use effective engineering practices - The IETF has difficulty handling large and/or complex problems - The IETF's workload exceeds the number of fully engaged participants - The IETF management structure is not matched to the current size and complexity of the IETF - Working group practices can make issue closure difficult - IETF participants and leaders are inadequately prepared for their roles Each of these problems can be decomposed into several areas for improvement, some of which can be addressed in the near-term while others require longer-term consideration. It is also important to note that the problem statement lists perceived problems. Although all of these problems have been perceived by some groups of IETF participants, not all of these problems are present in all parts of the IETF, and some of these problems may in fact be symptoms of other problems. This is why it is important, as part of our problem resolution processes, to develop metrics and baselines that will allow us to judge the effectiveness of any organizational or process changes. 4.1 Decomposition of Mission Problem In order to determine the best organization and processes for the IETF to fulfill its mission and achieve its goals, we need to reach a common understanding of the mission and goals of the IETF. Although it should be possible to understand the mission and goals of the IETF with no disruption to our current processes, it would only be valuable as part of a longer-term effort to align the organization and priorities of the IETF with its mission. As part of understanding our mission, the IETF will need to identify our "customers" and understand how we serve them. We also need to define our goals and priorities, and learn how to recognize and measure our own progress and success. 4.2 Decomposition of the Engineering Practices Problem The IETF lacks effective engineering practices in three major areas: 1. Effective mechanisms for issue tracking and/or document change control. Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 9 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 2. Effective processes to ensure quality throughout the development of IETF work items, such as intermediate acceptance criteria or formal review processes. 3. Sufficient focus on milestones, and recognition or rewards for individuals or groups that achieve timely, high quality execution. Some of these areas (issue tracking and revision control) would require that tools are made available to WG chairs and editors, and that IETF participants (at various levels) are educated in how to use them. Other areas concern the internal processes of IETF WGs, and would require documentation and adoption of effective engineering processes within IETF WGs. There is also a more fundamental issue with the IETF's engineering practices. Although our current standards track contains three levels of maturity (Proposed Standard, Draft Standard and Full Standard), we do not have sufficient differentiation regarding the quality and completeness of documents required at each stage. The bar is set very high for publication at Proposed Standard, and very few documents advance beyond this stage. [OPEN ISSUE: Do we have IETF consensus that this is a problem?] Although we should consider a longer-term process to revamp our standards-track document processes, this effort will be mutually dependent on the outcome of any IETF reorganization effort, as document approval is tightly tied to roles and responsibilities within the organization. 4.3 Decomposition of the Complex Problems Problem The IETF has effective mechanisms for dealing with well-defined problems of limited scope. These problems are well handled in IETF WGs, where experts in a given technology can convene and solve the problems specific to that technology. However, we are much less effective at resolving complex problems that affect more than one IETF WG or area. Today most communication between WG chairs, especially across area boundaries, goes through the IESG. Some inter-WG or inter-area problems could be alleviated by greater communication and coordination directly between the chairs of related WGs. Other complex problems involve higher-level issues, such as unified architecture or highly-coordinated multi-area efforts. As part of any IETF reorganization, we should consider management structures that will allow us to achieve a better focus on architectural and cross-area issues. 4.4 Decomposition of the Engagement Problem The engagement problem can be decomposed into two primary issues: Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 10 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 - Too few people participate in the development and review of WG documents. - People lose interest in longer-lived WGs, especially when protocols take a very long time to develop. When too few people, or people representing too few areas of expertise, review WG documents this can result in poor quality output. We need to find ways to increase the effectiveness of document review at all levels. Quality processes based entirely on a gatekeeper at the end, whether that gatekeeper is the IESG or a WG review board, tend to result in a lower focus on quality by other participants. So, it is possible that instituting better quality processes throughout document development, including acceptance criteria and review at several stages, would increase the focus of WG participants on document quality. Also, when a document is returned by the IESG to the WG, clearer reasons could be given, with the goal of educating the WG to help them reach a speedy resolution. Such education might also help document authors and editors to avoid similar mistakes in the future. Today, individual IESG members are responsible for too many WGs and too many documents to spend adequate time providing detailed feedback and educating WGs and authors. This problem should be considered in any IETF reorganization. When the interest of document editors or key contributors starts to flag, this can cause serious problems for a WG. This most often happens when WGs are floundering, or when charters are so loose that WGs lose focus. It also happens when WG documents get stuck in AD review and/or IESG review for long periods with little feedback, or when the WG lacks consensus to progress its documents. In most cases, these problems could be identified by periodic reviews of WG progress, and corrective action could be taken on a case-by-case basis (take steps to progress the documents, narrow the charter of the WG, split the WG in two, disband the WG, etc.). These problems might also be addressed by optimizing our document publication processes to result in more timely publication of WG output. 4.5 Decomposition of the Management Scaling Problem There are several issues grouped into the concept that the management structure of the IETF is not well matched to the size and complexity of the organization. One or two of these problems might be addressed by near-term solutions, but resolving the primary problem will require some type of IETF reorganization. There are three major areas for improvement that are grouped under this problem: Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 11 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 - The current organization of the IETF does not scale. IESG members are running too many WGs, reviewing too many documents, etc. Most IESG members have dozens of direct reports (WG chairs, directorate members, etc.). In its current form, there are very few people who could do a good job as an IESG member, and the huge time commitment and responsibilities of this role make it very difficult to find qualified people who are willing to serve on the IESG. - The IETF selection processes have tended to select leaders (IESG, IAB and WG chairs) from the same small pool of people. The IETF needs to identify and develop additional leadership, and to delegate real authority and influence to a larger group. - One or two people can block WG documents indefinitely (in AD review or IESG review). Some level of IETF reorganization is needed to improve in the first two areas. Any reorganization of the IETF should be done with a good understanding of the IETF's mission and core values. Any reorganization needs to be carefully considered and planned, to avoid disrupting current work and to avoid damaging things about the IETF that are currently working well. In parallel with a longer-term IETF reorganization, however, some relief could be achieved by modifying IESG internal processes to remove the potential for one or two IESG members to block a WG document, either on purpose or due to work overload. The I-D tracker has already resulted in some improvement in this area, as it has created visibility regarding how and why a document is being held, but it may not have resolved all of the issues in this area. To resolve the problems with the size of our leadership pool, we will need to examine, and perhaps modify, our current selection processes. IESG and IAB members are currently selected via the Nomcom process, and WG chairs are currently appointed by the "responsible AD" for each WG. The field of IESG candidates is sharply limited by the fact that serving on the IESG is nearly a full-time job. If we reorganize to make our leadership roles realistic to pursue as part-time activities, that would widen the leadership selection pool. We may also need to modify our Nomcom processes so that IETF participants who are not part of the IETF leadership can have more visibility into the Nomcom process and more proportional input into leadership selection. [OPEN ISSUE: Do we have consensus that these are real problems that need to be solved?] We may also want to reconsider the process that is used to select WG chairs. In particular, ADs could be encouraged to announce WG chair openings within their areas and/or to identify and develop more potential leaders. [OPEN ISSUE: Is there IETF consensus that we have a problem in this area?] Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 12 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 4.6 Decomposition of the Decision Process Problem Although "rough consensus" is considered a core value of the IETF, consensus-based decision making works best in smaller groups with a common viewpoint and common goals. Somehow we need to resolve the apparent conflict between our core values regarding rough consensus, and our desire to be an effective organization with several thousand participants. Although consensus-based decision making has some inherent issues, there are some problems in the IETF that exacerbate these issues: - WG chairs may lack the skills and training to deal with common behavior problems that undermine or prevent consensus. - IETF participants are often unaware of how the IETF decision-making processes are intended to work. Both of these issues could be addressed through training or other educational resources. 4.7 Decomposition of the Preparedness Problem The IETF could benefit from training and educational resources that increase the preparedness of IETF participants and leaders at all levels. The IETF currently has formal training programs for new attendees and for new working group chairs. However, our current training programs could use some improvement. There are also several other groups who could benefit from training or other forms of development (web tutorials, on-line resources, references, mentoring, etc.), including continuing attendees, experienced WG chairs, document editors and IESG members. There is already an effort underway to improve WG chairs training and educational resources and to support ongoing development of experienced WG chairs. This effort should be continued. The secretariat has traditionally supplied newcomer's training on Sunday afternoons, but due to personnel changes in the Secretariat, they will no longer be providing this training. Instead, this effort will be folded into the effort currently responsible for WG chairs training. Ongoing training for experienced attendees would also be valuable. Ned Freed, Allison Mankin and Thomas Narten provided some excellent training on the document process during the IESG plenary in December 2001 [DOCTRN]. Perhaps similar sessions could be planned to increase the awareness of IETF attendees regarding IETF processes, how to produce high quality IETF documents, IETF decision making processes, issues currently facing the IETF, etc. Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 13 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 We should also consider developing a training program or developing other educational resources for document editors. It is also possible that some training could be valuable for IESG and IAB members, as they do not always come to their positions with experience or well-developed skills in all aspects of their jobs. Most of the IESG and IAB training is currently done through mentoring by experienced IESG and IAB members, but the IESG and IAB are encouraged to seek more formal training or development in any areas where their groups, as a whole, lacks experience and/or skills. Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 14 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 5 Process Recommendations It is the overall recommendation of this document that we pursue near-term improvements to resolve IETF problems in parallel with longer-term efforts to reorganize the IETF and improve our standards processes. As part of this process, we should attempt to focus our near-term improvements on areas that are less likely to be substantially modified by our longer-term efforts, thus minimizing the likelihood of making our own efforts obsolete. 5.1 Near-Term Improvements Many of the problems currently facing the IETF can be resolved, or mitigated, through near-term improvements to our current IETF organization and processes. Many of these short-term improvements are completely separable, and there is no reason to aggregate these efforts into a single IETF WG. It is also unnecessary that all of these changes be directed by the (already overworked) IESG. However, in order to prevent the chaos and confusion that could be caused by trying to change everything at once, it is recommended that we choose a few initial areas for improvement and focus on making improvements in those areas. In choosing which areas to pursue first, we should consider the following criteria: - We should address our most urgent, important problems. - The areas chosen should be cleanly separable, to allow multiple improvements to be carried out in parallel with minimal interference. - We should maximize the benefit vs. the cost of making the improvements (i.e. look for low hanging fruit). - As much as possible, we should focus on improvements that are less likely to be completely invalidated by a longer- term reorganization of our management structure. This might be accomplished by focusing on improvements at the WG and participant levels, rather than at the IESG/IAB level. In the sections above, we have identified several areas that could benefit from short-term improvements, including: 1. Improve WG quality processes and the effectiveness of document reviews at all levels. 2. Increase the availability and use of issue tracking and document sharing/revision control software in the IETF. 3. Improve training and resources for new and experienced IETF participants, new and experienced WG chairs, document editors and leaders. 4. Improved communication between WG chairs to identify and resolve inter-WG and inter-area problems. Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 15 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 5. Modify IESG-internal processes to make it impossible for one or two IESG members to block a document. 6. Modify the WG chair selection processes to widen the group of people considered, and consider ways to develop more leaders for the IETF. 7. Modify the Nomcom processes to include more visibility and more proportional input from participants that are not in leadership roles. 8. Initiate regular AD review of WG milestones and progress. Applying the criteria outlined above, it would make the most sense to address areas 1, 2, 3 and 4 through immediate short-term efforts. These are high-priority issues, they are sufficiently separable to be pursued in parallel, they place minimal additional burden on the IESG, and they are the least likely to be affected by an IESG/IAB-level reorganization of the IETF, or by subsequent changes to the standards-track document process. Specific recommendations for how to proceed in each of these areas are made in the following sections. The IESG should consider internal changes to address areas 5 and 6. Area 7 is fairly likely to be impacted by a longer-term reorganization, and area 8 would require a substantial time commitment from IESG members, so it is not suggested that near-term improvements be pursued in these areas. 5.1.1 Suggestions to Improve WG Quality Processes A working group should be formed in the General Area of the IETF to oversee improvements to the quality processes used in IETF WGs, and to increase the effectiveness of IETF reviews at all levels. This group should take an experimental, iterative approach to these improvements: - Identify and prioritize a set of promising proposals for improvement. - Figure out what each proposal is trying to improve (in measurable terms) and define a metric to measure performance in that area. - Determine the current level of performance against the defined metric. - Institute each change in a few representative WGs (on a volunteer basis). - Measure the results to determine if each change was successful. - Make successful changes available IETF-wide, by publishing them in BCP RFCs. - As necessary, train WG chairs and other participants on the how to implement the successful improvements in their WGs. - Repeat as necessary. [OPEN ISSUE: Should the Problem Statement WG propose a charter for this group, or leave that to the General AD and selected chair(s)?] Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 16 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 A great deal of efficiency and synergy can be achieved by adopting common processes and tools throughout an organization. However, it is a strength of the IETF that WG chairs are given a great deal of latitude to choose their own processes and tools, based on the size and nature of their WGs. So, in general, processes and tools should be made available to WGs and WG chairs, not forced upon them. 5.1.2 Suggestions to Increase the Use of Tools Ideally, the proliferation of tools within the IETF would be accomplished via grass-roots efforts, organized by participants within the IETF. One example of this type of effort is the recent adoption of Jabber for use during IETF meetings. However, it is also possible that the IESG could designate leaders and support those leaders in organizing tools-related efforts. It also might be helpful for the IETF to set-aside some technical and systems resources, to make useful tools available to WGs and participants throughout the IETF. 5.1.3 Suggestions to Improve Training The current WG chairs and newcomer's training efforts should be continued and expanded as possible to cover training for other groups. 5.1.4 Suggestions to Increase WG Chair Communication Some efforts are already underway to allow WG chairs to meet each other, and to given them opportunities to establish communication channels, including WG chair socials and training sessions for experienced WG chairs. These efforts should be continued. The IESG could help to promote chair-to-chair communication by encouraging direct communication between WG chairs when multi-WG issues arise. However, most of the responsibility for establishing effective chair-to-chair communications channels lies with the individual WG chairs. We should stop relying on the IESG to resolve inter-WG issues, and start communicating with each other directly regarding inter-WG issues. 5.2 Longer-term Improvements There are two major areas where we should consider longer-term efforts to improve the IETF: - Organizational structure - IETF standards-track process Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 17 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 These two areas cannot be completely decoupled, as the roles and responsibilities of the IETF leadership are largely defined in terms of the standards process, and vice versa. Also, the standards-track process and the roles of IETF leadership are both largely defined within the same documents (RFC 2026 and RFC 2418). Therefore, a new organizational structure and any required changes to the standards-track process should be determined and enacted by a single WG, called the IETF Improvement WG (improve). The WG is encouraged to work on these issues in parallel, where possible. 5.2.1 IETF Improvement Working Group An IETF Improvement WG should be formed. This group should be empowered to make changes to RFC 2026, RFC 2418, the Nomcom process and the charters of the IESG and IAB, as needed to enact a new organization and standards track processes. 5.2.1.1 Working Group Charter and Deliverables The IETF Improvement WG will focus on two areas: - Improving the scalability and effectiveness of the IETF's organizational structure. - Improving the timeliness and utility of the IETF's standards track document processes. This WG will follow a two-phase process. Phase Two tasks will not be started until the deliverables for Phase One have been completed by the WG and submitted for publication. Phase One: Understanding our Core Values and Our Mission In this phase, the WG will articulate and document the core values, mission, scope and goals of the IETF. We will also learn how to recognize and measure the success of the IETF, and generate performance baselines that can be used to assess the success of later changes. Deliverables for Phase One include: - A document describing the core values of the IETF that should not be compromised as a result of the reorganization and process changes. The core values section of this document may serve as a useful starting point for this work. - A document describing the mission, scope and goals of the IETF. - A document describing how the IETF can recognize and measure our own success. - A set of performance baselines that characterize the recent performance of the IETF. Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 18 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 Phase Two: Organizing to Achieve our Mission and Goals without Compromising Our Core Values In this phase, the WG will document whatever improvements are needed to the IETF organization and processes to allow us to effectively achieve our mission and goals without compromising our core values. In this phase, the WG will: - Determine what approach will be used to identify, plan and execute the necessary improvements, - Scope and prioritize a set of improvements designed to increase the effectiveness of the IETF's organizational structure and processes, - Implement the improvements (most likely by publishing BCP RFCs), and - After a suitable time, reapply the metrics developed in Phase One to determine if the improvements have been successful. Although the IETF Improvement WG will ultimately be responsible for determining what improvements are required, it should be clear that this WG is empowered to make changes to the IETF organizational structure and processes, subject to approval by the appropriate oversight body (see below), such as: - Updates to RFC 2418, the Nomcom processes and the IESG and IAB charters (as needed) to define a more scaleable and effective organizational structure for the IETF. - Updates to RFC 2026 and other published processes to build an effective multi-level standards-track and to reflect any new organizational roles. 5.2.1.2 Internal WG Management The IETF Improvement WG will be managed by the WG chair(s), using standard IETF practices and procedures, as defined in RFCs 2026 and 2418 [RFC2026, RFC2418]. To ensure that there is community consensus regarding the charter of this WG, the charter for the IETF Improvement WG will be developed within the Problem Statement WG and included in the final version of this document. An initial charter proposal is included in Appendix A. 5.2.2 IETF Improvement WG Oversight There is an open question regarding who should have oversight responsibility for the IETF Improvement WG, including management of the WG chairs and approving the output for publication by the RFC editor. The two primary options are an IESG-driven approach overseen by the General AD, or an ISOC-driven approach overseen by Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 19 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 the ISOC President. These two proposals are further explained in the next two sections. The Problem Statement WG needs to decide which approach to recommend in this area. It is our suggestion that the Problem Statement WG select the proposal that most closely approximates the consensus of the IETF, and tune that proposal to achieve rough IETF consensus. 5.2.2.1 IESG-Directed Approach One possibility is that we could use the IETF WG and document processes defined in RFCs 2418 and 2026 [RFC2418, RFC2026] for the oversight of the IETF Improvement WG. In particular: - The WG would be formed in the General Area of the IETF, with the General AD serving as the "responsible AD". - The documents would be submitted to the IESG for approval and publication, according to the usual IETF processes. - If necessary, any appeals based on the processes or output of this WG would be handled according to the appeals procedures defined in RFCs 2418 and 2026. 5.2.2.2 ISOC-Directed Approach Another approach would be to ask the ISOC President and the ISOC Board of Trustees (ISOC BoT) to assume responsibility for the oversight of the IETF Improvement WG, similar to our current Nominations Committee processes, as defined in RFC 2727 [RFC2727]. In particular: - The WG would be formed outside of any IETF area, with the ISOC President serving as the equivalent of the "responsible AD". - The output of each phase would be presented at an open plenary during an IETF meeting, with IETF consensus on the output determined by the ISOC President. - After IETF consensus has been achieved on the output of each phase, the documents will be submitted to the ISOC BoT for approval and publication through the RFC editor. - This approach does not require an explicit appeals process, because an IETF Plenary is used as the basis for approval, and it is that body from which the IETF draws its authority. [OPEN ISSUE: Do we have consensus that a defined appeals process is not required for this option?] 5.2.3 IETF Improvement WG Chair Selection Another open question is how the chairs for the IETF Improvement WG should be selected. As with the organization and management of the WG, this document offers two choices: Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 20 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 - The chair(s) of the WG could be selected by the "responsible AD", or equivalent -- either the General AD or the ISOC President. - The chair(s) of the WG could be selected by the Nominations Committee (Nomcom), or by a Nomcom-like group assembled for the purpose. Either method of chair selection could be applied to either method of WG oversight. Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 21 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 6 Conclusion The IETF has problems, and we need to work to solve those problems, both via focused short-term improvements and via a longer-term effort to build an IETF structure that can better handle our current size and complexity. However, the IETF is also an effective organization with a long tradition of excellence, and core values that we donĘt want to compromise in the course of improving our organization and processes. So, any major changes undertaken in the IETF should include an articulation of the IETF's mission and our core values, so that we can ensure that we build an organization that can carry out our mission in harmony with our core values. Working together, we can fix the problems currently facing the IETF and make the IETF an even more effective, successful and fun place to work. Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 22 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 7 Security Considerations This document contains suggestions for processes that the IETF could use to resolve process-related and organizational problems with the IETF. Although the quality of the IETF's processes may have an affect on the quality of the IETF's security-related work, there are no specific security-related issues raised in this document. 8 Normative References [IETFPROB] E. Davies (ed.), "IETF Problem Statement", draft-ietf-problem- issue-statement-01.txt, May 2003 [RFC2026] S. Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", RFC 2026, BCP9, October 1996 [RFC2727] J. Galvin, "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees", RFC 2727, BCP 10, February 2000 [RFC2418] S. Bradner, "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures", RFC 2418, BCP 25, September 1998 9 Informative References [COREVAL] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/02nov/slides/plenary-2/sld4.htm [DOCTRN] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/01dec/slides/plenary-3/index.html 10 Acknowledgements The contents of this document were greatly influenced by members of the Problem Statement WG editorial team: Avri Doria, Dave Crocker, Elwyn Davies, Jeanette Hofmann, Melinda Shore, Rob Austein and Spencer Dawkins. The initial text for the core values section is largely based on presentations and messages authored by Harald Alvestrand. "Good times hide problems; Bad times hide successes" is taken from a presentation by Tom St. Dennis, the President and CEO of Wind River. The following people have provided useful feedback on early versions of this document: Randy Bush, Leslie Daigle. Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 23 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 11 Editor's Contact Information Comments or questions regarding this document should be sent to: Margaret Wasserman Wind River 10 Tara Blvd., Suite 330 Phone: (603) 897-2067 Nashua, NH 03062 USA Email: mrw@windriver.com Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 24 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 12 Appendix A: Suggested Charter for the Improvement WG IETF Improvement Working Group (improve) Chair(s): TBD, as described above. Area Director(s): TBD, as described above. Mailing List: TBD Description of the WG: The IETF Improvement WG is chartered to make improvements to the management structure and processes of the IETF to address the fundamental organizational and process problems described in the IETF Problem Statement (RFC XXXX), according to the process described in the IETF Problem Resolution Process (RFC XXXX). The IETF Improvement WG will focus on two areas: - Improving the scalability and effectiveness of the IETF's organizational structure. - Improving the timeliness and utility of the IETF's standards track document processes. This WG will follow a two-phase process. Phase two tasks will not be started until the deliverables for Phase One have been completed by the WG and submitted for publication. Phase One: Understanding our Core Values and Our Mission In this phase, the WG will articulate and document the core values, mission, scope and goals of the IETF. We will also learn how to recognize and measure the success of the IETF, and generate performance baselines that can be used to assess the success of later changes. The deliverables for Phase One include: - A document describing the core values of the IETF that should not be compromised as a result of the reorganization and process changes. - A document describing the mission, scope and goals of the IETF. - A document describing how the IETF can recognize and measure our own success. - A set of performance baselines that characterize the recent performance of the IETF. Phase Two: Organizing to Achieve our Mission and Goals without Compromising Our Core Values Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 25 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 In this phase, the WG will document whatever improvements are needed to the IETF organization and processes to allow us to effectively achieve our mission and goals without compromising our core values. In this phase, the WG will: - Determine what approach will be used to identify, plan and execute the necessary improvements, - Scope and prioritize a set of improvements designed to increase the effectiveness of the IETF's organizational structure and processes, - Implement the improvements (most likely by publishing BCP RFCs), and - After a suitable time, reapply the metrics developed in Phase One to determine if the improvements have been successful. Goals and Milestones: TBD Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 26 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 27 IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003 Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 28