what is a problem

[Leslie Daigle]

In-line..

Marshall Rose wrote:
>>A problem, for example, from an AD perspective, may be
>>that ADs have the responsibility for making sure that stuff
>>that goes through IETF process produces implementable,
>>reasonable standards.  And yet they only have 2 
>>checkpoints in a work item's history:  WG chartering
>>time, and document publication time.  In between
>>those 2 points, much may happen to take things in
>>a completely different direction.  (Yes, AD's
>>can/should be involved through the course of a WG's
>>life, but honestly, independently of time commitments,
>>that's indirect persuasion).  
> 
> 
> well, if that's how the ADs are running their areas now, then i'm
> surprised there aren't more problems. you're correct that there are only
> two formal checkpoints. however, the responsible AD (or a delegate)
> should be providing constant feedback to the WG... while there may be
> consternation, there shouldn't be any surprise.

I don't think we are in massive disagreement.  However,
my point was that WG's can (in practice) be opaque/non-deterministic
from the AD point of view, as well as the opposite.  And while
they have tools for combatting that, other than at checkpoints,
they are fairly heavy artillery.  

>     
>     
> 
>>A problem, from an IETF participant perspective, may be 
>>that IETF participants can carry a given work item so 
>>far (e.g., through WG process) and then the work item 
>>enters a state that the peopple who have worked on it 
>>can no longer determine what is happening to it, whether 
>>it is progressing, whether or what issues there are.  
>>Although they are collectively responsible for completing 
>>the work item, they have no way to read what is going on, 
>>or when it will re-enter a more determinate state.  And, of 
>>late, this state has typically lasted from weeks to months 
>>to years. This is an *IETF* problem, because it means that 
>>there is a huge chunk of indeterminism in the middle of 
>>trying to get work done.
>>
>>An IESG charter and transparency might be implemented
>>as part of the solution to these problems -- but I think
>>our discussion for now had better focus on getting
>>agreement on what the actual work-stoppage, root
>>cause problems are: things that, if they were magically
>>addressed, would mean the IETF was functioning well.
> 
> 
> i refer you to the PACT I-D that was written by geoff and myself.
>     
>     PACT = Predictability, Accountability, Competency, Timeliness...

Sure, I've read it.  But it strikes me as being an implementation
plan, and we (for the largest value of we) haven't agreed on
the problem yet.

Leslie.


-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"An essential element of a successful journey
    is recognizing when you have arrived."
   -- ThinkingCat  (c.1983 - 2002)

Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------