Comments on the Problem Statement draft: Document structure
Brian E Carpenter
brc at zurich.ibm.com
Tue Oct 7 16:42:05 CEST 2003
Charlie has spent a lot of time on this draft. But (and I suspect I am
repeating myself) I believe we are way beyond the point of diminishing
returns with this document. I believe, although I have my own quibbles,
that we should stop investing effort in polishing it. It is a document
of *no* long-term value; its value lies in triggering remedial action,
and that is where all our effort should now go.
Brian
Charlie Perkins wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> I have some comments on the draft. I'll break it down into
> three different e-mail messages, because otherwise I am
> afraid that many points might be lost.
>
> I believe that the document structure causes the
> document to lose effectiveness. It can be improved by
> some pretty basic reorganization:
>
> - The "Changes" sections should be moved into an
> appendix (or multiple appendices)
>
> - The "Acknowledgement" section (currently 1.4) should
> be moved to be the last section before the normative
> references.
>
> - In Section (2), the first part of the section should
> itemize the list of root causes, e.g.:
> = Unclear Mission
> = Poor Use of Effective Engineering Practice
> = Standards Process Abuse
> = Workload exceeds available staffing levels
> = Unsuitable Management Structure
> = Poor WG dynamics
> = Inadequate Staff Preparation
>
> This text should be placed before section 2.1.
>
> I know that the IETF participants are "Staff", because
> I have two IETF t-shirts that say so. Also I would
> strongly encourage _short_ formulations for the "root
> causes", because long rambling formulations just don't
> get the point across anywhere near as well.
>
> A statement is made that the "Unclear Mission" root
> cause is the "fundamental" cause. I don't believe it.
> I think it's much more a case of arbitrary procedures
> applied selectively according to circumstance and
> personal preference. When I discuss with people at
> the IETF, I may often hear a point of view that I don't
> agree with. But I rarely would characterize it as not
> having a clue about mission. Without formulating a
> proposed "mission statement" to try to prove my
> point, I would at least like to strongly suggest that the
> characterization in section 2., preceding section 2.1,
> is wrong. If I had to pick out a more fundamental
> root cause, it would be "Unsuitable Management
> Structure", at least from the current formulation for
> the set of root causes.
>
> Thus, I would suggest demoting section 2.2 to be placed
> _much_ later in section 2.
>
> More in another e-mail coming shortly.
>
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM
NEW ADDRESS <brc at zurich.ibm.com> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list