Doing the Right Things?

john.loughney at john.loughney at
Mon Jun 2 16:39:20 CEST 2003

Hi Margaret,

I generally agree with your points below, but I would like to add 
one to the near-term:

0) Improving the quality of communications in the IETF.

In following this list, and getting reading for the IETF, I
realised that the only time I have 'quality' discussions with
my ADs / the IESG / the IAB tends to be at the IETF meetings
(3 times a year) - but even then, it is haphazard because
everyone is serious overload during the meeting.

My AD is overloaded currently (and has been for a number of
years) so it is very difficult to get input / thoughts on
the technical direction of my WG.

My sent an updated charter for approval & I secretely hoped
that the IESG / IAB would engage me on the direction of WG ..
but that didn't really happen.

So, this makes me think your points below will not have much
of an impact if we don't address some other things as well.
It seems to me that the current way of working in the IETF
was designed many years ago, for a much smaller IETF & the
process is showing its age.  

I am not sure about solutions, but I do have some ideas.
However, before offering them, I wonder what others think
about communications within the IETF, in general?


> I have a concern about the type of discussions that we've
> been having regarding the process document, so far...
> The discussion has focused quite heavily on who should
> manage the improvement processes and very little on what
> those improvement processes should be.
> The process document currently recommends four separate,
> parallel near-term efforts and a longer-term effort, as
> follows:
>     Near-Term:
>        (1) Form a WG intended to improve the quality,
> 		timeliness and predictability of IETF
> 		WG output, by improving our quality and
> 		review processes.
> 	(2) Continue and expand our ongoing educational
> 		efforts for WG chairs and participants,
> 		including the addition of education for
> 		editors.  A BOF request for Vienna has
> 		already been circulated regarding this
> 		work.
> 	(3) Encourage grass-roots efforts to deploy
> 		tools for voluntary use by WGs and
> 		IETF participants, particularly for
> 		issue tracking and document sharing.
> 	(4) Continue efforts to promote communication
> 		between WG chairs.  This section is very
> 		weak, and additional suggestions would
> 		be appreciated.
> 	Longer-Term:
> 	(5) Form an IETF Improvement WG that will
> 		undertake a two phase process:
> 		- Understand the mission, values and
> 		  goals of the IETF, and develop metrics
> 		  to measure and evaluate our current
> 		  performance.
> 		- Make changes the organizational
> 		  structure of the IETF and/or our
> 		  standards-track processes to
> 		  improve the efficiency and
> 		  scalability of the IETF.
> So, regardless of exactly _how_ we organize to do these
> things and/or _who_ does them...  Do people think that
> these are the right things to do?
> Margaret

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list