improving WG operation (was Re: Voting (again))

[Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>]

On Apr 28, 2005, at 2:12 AM, John Loughney wrote:

> Keith,
>
> You've raised these points, over a number of years, but I wonder if it 
> would be useful to explore implications of some of your comments:
>
> > 2.  IESG's scaling problems are a direct result of low-quality output
> > from working groups, and we can't do much to address that problem
> > by changing how IESG works.
> >
> > 3. I don't think we can make IESG significantly larger, I don't think
> > we can dispense with final document review and keep document quality
> > up, and I don't think that additional reviewers can signficantly
> > relieve IESG of the need to do final review.  I do think that
> > additional reviewers could be very valuable in giving WGs feedback 
> > from
> > early drafts, keeping them on the right track, and keeping IESG
> > informed about the status of the WGs.  I also think that a document
> > that has enjoyed such review and feedback throughout its life cycle
> > will be much easier for IESG to review, and that (without any changes
> > to IESG's organization or process) it will be harder for IESG to 
> > reject
> > such documents without sound technical justification.
>
> Here, in the Problem WG and other places, you've raise the point that 
> increasing the IESG probably won't help.  You've implied that we 
> probably have too many working groups and too many drafts in the 
> working groups.  The implications of these are that the IETF has too 
> much work in too many areas to be effective.

I believe the IETF could perhaps take on more work if it improved the 
process by which working groups operate.  This would lessen IESG's 
burden by giving them better documents to work with; it might also 
reduce the average duration of a WG, making more room for others.  The 
industry wouldn't mind that either.  One of the problems that some WGs 
have is that they take on too many drafts, which both hinders the 
ability of the working group to finish its more important work and 
imposes additional burdens on IESG.

I also think that IETF could use its resources more effectively if it 
exercised more care about which working groups it chartered.  For 
instance, IMHO we've wasted a lot of effort trying to come up with 
short-term workarounds for NATs, without any of them providing a 
migration path away from NATs.

> If I understand some of Dave's and John K's comments, they are willing 
> to entertain thoughts on how to do things better (& differently) in 
> order to ensure that the IETF remains relevant.

As am I.  But I would like to see attention focused on working group 
operation, which I believe is our biggest source of problems.

Keith


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf