WG Quality Processes WG

john.loughney at nokia.com john.loughney at nokia.com
Mon Jun 2 16:45:38 CEST 2003


> 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. 


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list