WG Quality Processes WG
john.loughney at nokia.com
john.loughney at nokia.com
Mon Jun 2 16:45:38 CEST 2003
Margaret,
> So, do people think we need a WG like this? If so, does
> it make sense to hold a BOF in Vienna? I'm happy to do
> some leg work (write up the indicated process in more
> detail, and propose a couple of improvements to consider)
> if people think that this is a reasonable way to proceed.
I think we should have a BOF.
>
> 5.1.1 Suggestions to Improve WG Quality Processes
>
> A working group should be formed in the General Area of the IETF to
> oversee improvements to the quality processes used in IETF WGs, and
> to increase the effectiveness of IETF reviews at all levels. This
> group should take an experimental, iterative approach to these
> improvements:
>
> - Identify and prioritize a set of promising proposals for
> improvement.
> - Figure out what each proposal is trying to improve (in
> measurable terms) and define a metric to measure
> performance in that area.
> - Determine the current level of performance against the
> defined metric.
> - Institute each change in a few representative WGs (on a
> volunteer basis).
> - Measure the results to determine if each change was
> successful.
> - Make successful changes available IETF-wide, by publishing
> them in BCP RFCs.
> - As necessary, train WG chairs and other participants on the
> how to implement the successful improvements in their WGs.
> - Repeat as necessary.
>
> A great deal of efficiency and synergy can be achieved by adopting
> common processes and tools throughout an organization. However, it
> is a strength of the IETF that WG chairs are given a great deal of
> latitude to choose their own processes and tools, based on the size
> and nature of their WGs. So, in general, processes and tools
> should be made available to WGs and WG chairs, not forced upon
> them.
I think the above sound good, but I would not simply keep everything at
the WG level, some should be IETF-wide.
It would be great, for example, if
a) WGs that were more than 6 months late on one of their deliverables where
sent montly reminders of the fact until either the deliverable was completed
or charter was updated.
b) If the Draft-tracker had a time out, so that any document sitting in a certain
state for too long (say 4 months) generated a mail to the mailing list, document
editor(s)/author(s), sheparding AD about the status.
c) if the draft-tracker would send mail to a WG, author(s)/editor(s) everytime a
document changed state
and so forth.
John
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list