Comments on the Problem Statement draft: Document structure

[Brian E Carpenter]

Charlie has spent a lot of time on this draft. But (and I suspect I am
repeating myself) I believe we are way beyond the point of diminishing
returns with this document. I believe, although I have my own quibbles,
that we should stop investing effort in polishing it. It is a document
of *no* long-term value; its value lies in triggering remedial action,
and that is where all our effort should now go.

   Brian

Charlie Perkins wrote:
> 
> Hello folks,
> 
> I have some comments on the draft.  I'll break it down into
> three different e-mail messages, because otherwise I am
> afraid that many points might be lost.
> 
> I believe that the document structure causes the
> document to lose effectiveness.  It can be improved by
> some pretty basic reorganization:
> 
> - The "Changes" sections should be moved into an
>    appendix (or multiple appendices)
> 
> - The "Acknowledgement" section (currently 1.4) should
>    be moved to be the last section before the normative
>    references.
> 
> - In Section (2), the first part of the section should
>    itemize the list of root causes, e.g.:
>    = Unclear Mission
>    = Poor Use of Effective Engineering Practice
>    = Standards Process Abuse
>    = Workload exceeds available staffing levels
>    = Unsuitable Management Structure
>    = Poor WG dynamics
>    = Inadequate Staff Preparation
> 
> This text should be placed before section 2.1.
> 
> I know that the IETF participants are "Staff", because
> I have two IETF t-shirts that say so.  Also I would
> strongly encourage _short_ formulations for the "root
> causes", because long rambling formulations just don't
> get the point across anywhere near as well.
> 
> A statement is made that the "Unclear Mission" root
> cause is the "fundamental" cause.  I don't believe it.
> I think it's much more a case of arbitrary procedures
> applied selectively according to circumstance and
> personal preference.  When I discuss with people at
> the IETF, I may often hear a point of view that I don't
> agree with.  But I rarely would characterize it as not
> having a clue about mission.  Without formulating a
> proposed "mission statement" to try to prove my
> point, I would at least like to strongly suggest that the
> characterization in section 2., preceding section 2.1,
> is wrong.  If I had to pick out a more fundamental
> root cause, it would be "Unsuitable Management
> Structure", at least from the current formulation for
> the set of root causes.
> 
> Thus, I would suggest demoting section 2.2 to be placed
> _much_ later in section 2.
> 
> More in another e-mail coming shortly.
> 
> Regards,
> Charlie P.

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 

NEW ADDRESS <brc at zurich.ibm.com> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK