ineffective use of meeting time

[Bound, Jim]

I agree with Harald but not for all specs?  Well maybe?  I have seen this organizational problem for technology in industry too particularly around networking.  You have one team working on their favorite fabrics iSCSI, IB, Ethernet, and another working on classic networking.  But they have to join forces and have a common solution.  The end result is put all the right folks on one list who understand the problem and also understand well one of the issues.

This is a call for SIR yet again if the WG cannot get to conclusion.

My issue with SIR is how it is done.  And I will use another real case.  We have an IPv6 Forum Technical Directorate.  It was created to review technical issues or ideas that stem from a a very large IPv6 Forum membership.  To be on it one had to be one of several things very technical, very well known in some community as expert, or in some cases high academic or standards body credentials.  But the one requirement that everyone must have met was a demonstrable commitment and piece of technology work that benefited the adoption of IPv6 as a leader.  Also we try to not let anyone vendor have more folks than others on the list.  Just in case.  We also try to have 4 people for each expertise (e.g. Routing, APIs, IP Stack Gurus, Mobile IP, 3GPP, IETF Process, etc).


The way this body works now is they are like a special forces technology group in the IPv6 Forum.  They have no authority, but their influence is strong.  They are only used when they are needed and they are called upon usually as individuals or teams.  Their membership is publicly disclosed on the web page, but pictures are not required but recommended.

This body has the highest respect of the IPv6 Forum membership and full support of that membership.  The reason is because they do not function as authority body or good ole boy network, but as true helping hand as required.

Also over 60% of the membership are out doing work on IPv6 nearly all the time in some form or the other on their own.  They can also put this on their resume or on their bio for speaking engagements.  They are also often the leaders for ad hoc short lived committees or white papers.

Note key ingredients:

1. Multiple criteria for membership
2. One common criteria all must meet (this creates a bond/mission between them)
3. Multiple expertises that can work as one unit or team as required
4. Public disclosure of their membership with the body so they have respect
5. Do not tie them up with meetings and process
6. Theory Y+Z management style used to foster self motivation (no Theory X)
7. Mail list is private so they can speak freely and yell if required.
8. Not viewed as good ole boy network by the membership body overall.
9. Used as special forces for problems/issues of technical nature
10. Self motivated and participate in problem resolution and own real problems.
11. Being a member gives good industry status and with peers in the industry
12. The group itself can reject candidates that are in question to join.
13. Group is chartered by the IPv6 Forum legalese documents officially

I chair this group and they are very good and this works.  About 45 people on this now and it is very managable.  SIRs or other IETF ad hoc teams need some of these ingredients.  But most important is that it not be a good ole boy network.

/jim

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald at alvestrand.no] 
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 4:05 AM
> To: Spencer Dawkins; problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: RE: ineffective use of meeting time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --On søndag, mars 23, 2003 19:56:20 -0800 Spencer Dawkins 
> <spencer_dawkins at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > I agree with Jim, Keith, Aaron, and everyone else who has 
> asked us to 
> > minimize (not eliminate) background presentations.
> >
> > Jim is identifying a related problem - working groups that have so 
> > many drafts that even a well-disciplined participant will have read 
> > only drafts of interest - which may be a minority of the 
> drafts being 
> > discussed.
> 
> very powerful argument for more focused working groups.
> 
> but the check/balance here is of course what Keith says about the big 
> picture - the more focused working groups more easily lose 
> track of the big 
> picture (for some size of "big").
> 
> <solution-space>
> I think we need to consider how to have discussions that are 
> bigger than 
> working groups but smaller than the IETF.
> </solution-space>
> 
>