Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking

[john.loughney@nokia.com]

Hi Margaret,

A few comments:

> Lots of companies have fallen into a trap that I hope that we will
> NOT fall into:
>=20
> Because it is easier to measure timeliness (i.e. meeting deadlines)
> in an objective fashion, that becomes the primary metric by which
> engineering teams (and their managers) are judged.  The second
> metric (also easy to measure) usually concerns the number of bugs
> reported against the product, length of time spent in QA, or
> something like that -- we'd probably count the "cycles" of
> a document and/or measure time spent in the IESG.

Thankfully, the IETF is not a company, and I hope it will not be
run like one. =20

> No one has managed to figure out, at the time of release, how to
> objectively measure the really important things:  (1) suitability
> of the product to its market, and (2) the quality, extensibility,
> reusability, etc. of the architecture and code.  So, these things
> get short shrift from engineering managers and engineering teams.

I think that a good model is that the IETF sets a generally agreed
target for the above, and allows the market plays to see if what
is produced meets the market needs.  I prefer a sort of 'good
enough' approach towards IETF protocols, rather than 'perfect.'

> I don't know exactly what to do about this...  some thoughts:
>=20
>          (1) Fund some management/organizational training for
>                  our current leaders.
>          (2) Appoint a different set of leaders that will better
>                  combine technical profundity and management
>                  skill (either in each person, or by having one
>                  of each for each area).
>          (3) Reorganize the IETF so that the keepers of the
>                  technical quality gateway are NOT the same
>                  people who are responsible for running the
>                  process and managing the organization.

I think that is all reasonable.  Point 3 may breakdown to a balance
of power between the IAB, IESG and WG chairs.  If this balance of
power is more or less documented, I think the process may work=20
better.  The initial IESG charter draft is a good first step
towards this.

br,
John