ISSUE: Goal of problem-statement document
Bound, Jim
Jim.Bound at hp.com
Sun Jun 8 09:44:06 CEST 2003
I agree with you Spencer. If we have to have total consensus on root
cause it is death. I think when you see 5 or 6 bright people from
multiple vantage points say something is at the root it warrants at
least being on the list for now.
/jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:spencer at mcsr-labs.org]
> Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 12:45 AM
> To: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: ISSUE: Goal of problem-statement document
>
>
> Dear Randy,
>
> I'm reading your note as carefully as I can, and see you are
> asking that we understand needs and requirements well. I
> agree, and want to focus on the definition of "well enough".
>
> Speaking only for myself, I agreed with our text (and may
> have suggested it) because I strongly suspected that the
> engineering alternative was discussing each problem,
> determining its root cause, and agreeing on a prioritized
> list of root causes before we did anything.
>
> I would love to be wrong.
>
> I can't speak for others, but my goal here was to avoid
> having to figure out what the IETF consensus was on a
> prioritized root cause list before moving on any root cause.
> This looked like death to me. I don't believe there are ANY
> scope limits on discussions about the relative priority of
> root IETF problems, unlike our normal engineering work.
>
> So I thought developing a root cause list (which we have
> done, at least at some level) was sufficient, without
> spending time trying to determine priorities. I thought this
> was "good enough".
>
> I would love to hear other opinions.
>
> Spencer Dawkins
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Randy Bush" <randy at psg.com>
> To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald at alvestrand.no>
> Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
> Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 4:21 PM
> Subject: Re: ISSUE: Goal of problem-statement document
>
>
> > > We, in line with many contributors to the mailing list, do not
> > > believe that the process of problem resolution will be helped
> > > by continued rework of the root issues in what would probably
> > > be a vain attempt to achieve any sort of consensus. Instead,
> > > the general tenor and scope of the problems identified will
> > > provide a guide in setting up the processes needed to resolve
> > > the problems and provide input to the resolvers.
> >
> > i always found this part particularly amusing considering
> it is being
> > pushed by the same folk who so strongly push for a classic software
> > engineering management view of the wg product process. how can we
> > think we will produce a good result if we do not first define the
> > needs and requirements well?
> >
> > randy
> >
>
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list