Subject: Re: [RAI] Dispatch Charter - draft B

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:47:20 -0500

I think the problem with the SIP Session 2 (labeled as DISPATCH) is that
we don't yet have the charter to run a true DISPATCH-style WG. So, we
ended up with docs that would end up being discussed in DISPATCH handled
in a SIPPING WG manner. Since many of the docs were newer, had open
issues, or are very complex, we really couldn't make decisions as to
whether the group as a whole wanted to work on the problem. Also, as has
been the case (and is the model in general) for the SIP and SIPPING WG
sessions (with few exceptions) we do not have the bandwidth to cover all
the incoming work, along with the existing chartered items in the time
allotted at the f2f meetings.  We also lost about 1-1.5 hours since SIP
only had 2 hour slots and we used 30 minutes of the SIPPING slot for
discussion of the proposed SIPCore/DISPATCH model. So, the situation was
worse than normal IMHO, although not as bad as several years ago where
many docs only got 5 minutes. 
 
However,  even if we had handled things DISPATCHY - i.e., go or no go, I
do not think we would have made any better progress - i.e., folks just
do not have time to conscientiously consider new work without having
some prior discussion. And, in so very many cases, even when we do make
decisions at the meetings, the opinons are very often reversed at the
next meeting.  
 
I do think some progress was made on some of the work items that had
been around longer.  I do not think it's unreasonable to have a
conclusion that further discussion is required. I would hope that most
of the document authors felt that they had at least received
constructive feedback.  Personally, I think the most effective use of
time at the f2f meetings is adhoc and design team meetings, where folks
can have more time for detailed discussion - i.e., I do not think
overall that IETF 2 hour working group slots are effective except for
the WGs that have the smallest scope and minimal chartered work.  I
really think we could make more progress by having more of these
adhoc/design team meetings (and conference calls), so that the WG
timeslot is focused on summarizing where the group is and a proposed way
forward. 
 
I also think we MUST have a model whereby work is done in between
meetings - e.g., the documents that got constructive and concrete
feedback should be updated within one month of the meeting or they're
moved to the back of the queue for the next meeting, etc.  It is still
quite rare for docs to get updated more than once between meetings. This
is one of the biggest impediments to progress IMHO. 
 
Mary. 

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Dean Willis
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:55 PM
To: Gonzalo Camarillo
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [RAI] Dispatch Charter - draft B

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo
<[email-masked]> wrote:

	Hi,
	
	yes, including so many drafts in the agenda does not make sense.
More focused agendas where things can be actually discussed are much
better and the way to go.

This was a very educational exercise. I am sure I learned a lot, but I
do not really like what I think I learned.

We did not appear to be focused on making decisions, we seemed to be
merely trying to beat the presenters, or at least beat the clock.

I never heard "If we thought this needed doing, should this be SIPCORE,
another existing working group, or BOF material?" 

This could be a training thing, a schedule thing, or a chair-style
thing. Maybe all of the three, or something else.

I think it would be useful to get some people together for a
recap-and-hash before the Friday meeting.

--
Dean