Subject: Re: area directors at risk

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 09:36:04 -0800

At 02:59 PM 11/20/2001, [email-masked] wrote:

>With all the technology available today is there not a way (secure of 
>course) for working group chairs to update their own charter and 
>milestones.  I agree that sending them in for updates does slow/inhibit 
>the process.

The reason is that the IESG cares very much about the wording in the 
charter so that the group is steered in the right direction.

However due to this "crisis", maybe we ought to rethink things a bit. 
Perhaps after a group has had it's initial charter created, the WG chair(s) 
can then do the updates on their own as long as they think it meets the 
consensus thinking of the working group. Then the IESG can always go back 
and slap a wrist or two if a chair steps out of line.

The only way this would work is if the IESG changed their basic worries 
about being politically correct. If we can adopt a "just do it" mentality 
and stop worrying about offending minority interests (I'm generalizing 
here), then we will accomplish so much more than we do today. In fact, that 
is exactly how the IETF first got rolling. The IETF offended people by 
foisting some crazy new networking scheme written by "college kids" rather 
than accredited formal standards bodies. The IETF didn't follow standard 
guidelines for networking.

If we stagnate into becoming more like the ITU-T, then the IETF is done and 
another group will start up. And in some select ways, we have already 
become like the ITU-T. Let's hope we don't go further down that path.

---

From: "Jim Whitehead" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:40:20 -0800

> >milestones.  I agree that sending them in for updates does slow/inhibit

A WebDAV-based solution would allow WG chairs to remotely edit their
charter, milestones, etc.

- Jim

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:01:03 -0800

> charter, milestones, etc.

and we could use soap to make them coherent, in line with architecture,
simple and direct in scope, and narrow enough to obviate the need to
work with ads and the iesg.  cool!  :-)

randy

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:56:11 -0500

On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 09:36:04AM -0800, Matt Holdrege wrote:
> Perhaps after a group has had it's initial charter created, the WG
> chair(s) can then do the updates on their own as long as they think
> it meets the consensus thinking of the working group. Then the IESG
> can always go back and slap a wrist or two if a chair steps out of
> line.

Matt-

I was thinking along similar lines.  However, in my experience, a well
written charter doesn't need nearly the maintenance as a meaninful set
of working group milestones.  IMHO, the working group milestones
listed on the charter page are usually so outdated as to be useless.

Suppose, rather than updating the working group's charter, wg chairs
invested more time in writing clear and meaningful milestones and kept
them updated.  Past experience on large projects has taught me that
one's ability to create an accurate schedule reduces rapidly the
farther out one plans.  So, naturally, when you create a list of
milestones you'll have many for the next few tasks and a few vague
ones out in the future.  There's nothing wrong with this as long as
you continue to update the schedule.  Where many charters seem to
falter is that a single list containing some deliverables and dates is
created then is only rarely updated.

This has the added benefit of requiring little to no pre-submission
review by the AD, so long as the milestones are consistant with the
charter. 

In fact, one might also make milestone updates a pre-requisite to
getting IETF meeting agenda slots.  Of course, this won't ensure
quality but it will at least cause chairs to give the matter some
thought. 

--aaron

PS. A glance at the PILC charter will show that I am at least as
guilty as the next chair milestone update procrastination. -af

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:49:32 -0500

At 09:36 AM 11/21/01 -0800, Matt Holdrege wrote:
>The only way this would work is if the IESG changed their basic worries about being politically correct. If we can adopt a "just do it" mentality and stop worrying about offending minority interests (I'm generalizing here), then we will accomplish so much more than we do today. 

In some cases the minority interest is the IESG or the IAB.  
I've been involved with several working groups (including
the one I chair) where the consensus has been to do fabulously
stupid stuff.  If work is ultimately going to fail IESG or
IAB review knowing that sooner rather than later helps control
the workload and get things done more quickly.

Melinda

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:25:17 -0800

At 10:49 AM 11/21/2001, Melinda Shore wrote:
> here), then we will accomplish so much more than we do today.
>

My answer to that is...let it fail. If the IESG members feel that something 
is wrong, they should comment to the group just as any ordinary contributor 
would. If the group still ignores them, then either the group is right or 
they will waste their own time. However if the IESG feels if the chair and 
editor are not following the groups wishes, then they need to step in as 
managers and correct the situation. I think the IESG's most important task 
is to select good WG chairs. It's certainly an area that needs improvement.

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:27:43 -0800

>listed on the charter page are usually so outdated as to be useless.

I certainly agree about the milestones. However even a well written charter 
sometimes needs updating based on actions in other WG's or actions in our 
rapidly changing industry.

---

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:41:22 -0800 (PST)

> we could use soap ... to obviate the need to work with ads

I wonder if we upgraded to carbolic, we could obviate the need
for WG chairs :-)

More seriously, I think the WG charter is important, not so much
in what it says is in, but what it says is OUT OF SCOPE.  Back
to Frank's (Frank, do you mind if I call it a rant?), the IETF
does have a hard time saying no, and while it's getting better
(in spots), the charter is probably our best defense.

And having a carefully worded charter that the IESG reviews and
tracks is important beyond words.

Kireeti.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 14:38:53 -0500

At 11:25 AM 11/21/01 -0800, Matt Holdrege wrote:
>My answer to that is...let it fail. If the IESG members feel that something is wrong, they should comment to the group just as any ordinary contributor would. If the group still ignores them, then either the group is right or they will waste their own time. However if the IESG feels if the chair and editor are not following the groups wishes, then they need to step in as managers and correct the situation. I think the IESG's most important task is to select good WG chairs. It's certainly an area that needs improvement.

If the IETF is facing both bandwidth and latency problems,
and I'd agree that it is, then allowing stupid work to continue
through working group last call only to be rejected outright
by the IESG is going to tend to exacerbate the problem, not
correct it.  Right now the working group chairs are expected
to respect the wishes of the working group.  As an aging hippie
who's done a lot of work in consensus-based decision-making
that has a lot of appeal for me personally, but if there's no
protection against work that's certain to fail review
going forward things are going to get slower and more
resource-intensive.

Melinda

---

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:45:24 -0800 (PST)

>  a meaninful set of working group milestones

Excellent point.  I too am guilty of MUP (yes, all we need is another
TLA) (milestone update procrastination)

Fixing ...

Kireeti.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:03:12 -0800

> in what it says is in, but what it says is OUT OF SCOPE.

yup!

> the IETF does have a hard time saying no

and it is not easy being a no-sayer.  first, one has to think harder
to make sure one is not stomping something good.  then there is all
the <bleep> one gets when one says "no."

> tracks is important beyond words.

and a wg which has a charter which had serious iesg buy-in has an
easier time pursuing the charter.  because it is harder for us iesg
types to 'help' you.  :-)

i wish to point out that allison's words about drafts, "short and
simple" can apply to charters too.  crisp focus is very defendable.

randy

---

From: George Swallow <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:20:02 -0500

> tracks is important beyond words.

Yes.  And as far as optimizing an AD's time, charter up-dating goes in
the "ounce of prevention" category.

...George

==================================================================
George Swallow       Cisco Systems                   (978) 244-8143
                     250 Apollo Drive
                     Chelmsford, Ma 01824

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:16:39 -0500

>At 10:49 AM 11/21/2001, Melinda Shore wrote:

without making this thread much longer than necessary ..

>> about being politically correct. If we can adopt a "just do it" 
>> mentality and stop worrying about offending minority interests (I'm 
>> generalizing here), then we will accomplish so much more than we do today.
>>
>>stupid stuff.

I've noticed this contagion in many other wg's as well as 
well...unfortunately there is no known testing agent available ...

>>  If work is ultimately going to fail IESG or
>My answer to that is...let it fail. If the IESG members feel that 
>something is wrong, they should comment to the group just as any ordinary 
>contributor would.

I think most do ... I know of many AD's capable of shutting down a thread 
or a line of discussion at a formal meeting with 1 or 2 well phrased sentences.

>If the group still ignores them, then either the group is right or they 
>will waste their own time. However if the IESG feels if the chair and 

However in the event that the contagion occurs  ..the IESG is the place to 
stop stupid protocols and ideas from entering the network. There is nothing 
politically incorrect in just saying NO.
{now when did I start quoting Nancy Regan?}

Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
45980 Center Oak Plaza   Bldg 8     Sterling, VA  20166
1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005
Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640,  Fax: 815.333.1237
<mailto: [email-masked]> or
<mailto: [email-masked]>
<http://www.neustar.biz>
<http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:30:41 -0500

Actually, at least when I was on the IESG, the reason we worried a lot 
about charter wording was not what I thought of as political 
correctness.  It was so we (IESG) had good control over what we (WG Chairs) 
treated as "in scope" for our working group.  Some chairs are (and will be) 
good at focusing on the immediately needed deliverables.  However, some 
chairs would like to get every related item onto their working groups 
plate, even if it means things take longer.  The wording in the charter 
turns out to be very important in terms of helping the AD crack the whip on 
some chairs.  (I think at different times I have been on at least three 
different sides of what I just described.)
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 09:36 AM 11/21/01 -0800, Matt Holdrege wrote:
>chair(s) can then do the updates on their own as long as they think it 
>meets the consensus thinking of the working group. Then the IESG can 
>always go back and slap a wrist or two if a chair steps out of line.
>
>here), then we will accomplish so much more than we do today. In fact, 
>that is exactly how the IETF first got rolling. The IETF offended people 
>by foisting some crazy new networking scheme written by "college kids" 
>rather than accredited formal standards bodies. The IETF didn't follow 
>standard guidelines for networking.
>
>If we stagnate into becoming more like the ITU-T, then the IETF is done 
>and another group will start up. And in some select ways, we have already

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 14:09:06 -0800

At 12:16 PM 11/21/2001, Richard Shockey wrote:
>>managers and correct the situation. I think the IESG's most important 
>>task is to select good WG chairs. It's certainly an area that needs 
>>improvement.
>
>stop stupid protocols and ideas from entering the network. There is 
>nothing politically incorrect in just saying NO.

However, if an entire WG thinks it is the right thing to do, why would an 
area director stop them? Who decides what is stupid? We are an open 
community and one person can't stop a herd. The IESG can and does suggest 
very strongly and that is a good thing. But the IETF is here since we 
didn't listen to ISO people tell us we were stupid.

---

From: Stuart Staniford <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:27:38 -0800

Aaron Falk wrote:
> them updated.  

I like this idea.  My WG's charter is only very mildly bent.  Our
milestones are badly broken.  Auto update of the milestones might be done
without AD review.  Maybe there is just AD notification, so the AD is given
an opportunity to bark at the WG chair for the slippage, but doesn't become
part of the problem by being directly in the approval loop for the
milestones.  Actual charter update would still require AD/IESG approval.

Stuart.

-- 
Stuart Staniford     ---     President     ---     Silicon Defense
         ** Silicon Defense: Technical Support for Snort **
mailto:[email-masked]  http://www.silicondefense.com/
(707) 445-4355 x 16                           (707) 445-4222 (FAX)

---

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:32:23 -0800 (PST)

> if an entire WG thinks it is the right thing to do

Usually, that's not the case.  Someone will come up with a
"fabulously stupid" (love that phrase!) idea, 10 people will
support it, and the rest of the WG will be reading their email/
playing Solitaire/trying not to snore too loudly.  The original
Someone will declare "rough consensus" and is off to the races.

The WG chair needs to step in and do something.  If not, an AD
needs to step and do something.  I've seen this happen; more
often, I've seen it not happen.

Kireeti.

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 18:27:37 -0500

On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 03:27:38PM -0800, Stuart Staniford wrote:
> without AD review.

Stuart-  

I'm suggesting more than auto-update.  I'm thinking that we should put more
granularity into the milestones, adding some intermediate tasks, so
that an unfamilliar observer, or even a busy AD, could see at a glance
the current key work elements occupying the wg's time.  It might also
help focus the chairs on the next things to get done and give them
tools to beat down some distractions and climb out of ratholes.

--aaron

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 22:14:04 -0500

> milestones.  Actual charter update would still require AD/IESG approval.

I may be wrong about this, but I was under the impression that
milestone updates worked the way you describe already; if you send a
request to update your milestones to the Secretariat, and you cc your
AD, I *think* the milestones will get updated right away.  It's only
if there's a charter update that you need to go through the approval
process.

							- Ted

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:08:22 +0100

FWIW, there is a collected set of IETF milestones listed at the following 
URL:

http://www.ops.ietf.org/milestones.html

All 829 of them, including the 646 that are overdue.

I think a *lot* of them are DONE.

You should all have received milestone reminders some time within the past 
year, including instructions on how to update them.

Please do.

                    Harald

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:34:08 -0800

>invested more time in writing clear and meaningful milestones and kept

when I refer to "updating a charter", this is mostly what I have in mind. I 
think folks generally hit what they aim at, and the charter is the aiming 
tool. When we entirely forget to aim, we still hit what we aim at.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:31:55 -0800

At 10:36 AM 11/21/2001, Matt Holdrege wrote:
>meets the consensus thinking of the working group.

with all due respect, one of our problems is that working groups come in 
saying they want to do <this> and wind up working on <that> now. If the 
charter is as flexible as you suggest, then it is rather pointless.

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:43:37 -0800

>charter is as flexible as you suggest, then it is rather pointless.

Yes there is room for abuse whether intended or not. But the abuse can be 
corrected. Anyhow I'm just trying to think outside the box for a solution 
if in fact we have a problem with getting the IESG to agree to charters in 
a timely manner.

---

From: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:28:19 +0800

I think modifying the action items and milestones without touching the
text of the charter would be able to give flexibility to be focus
without creating the problem you described below.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Baker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Matt Holdrege" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: area directors at risk

> >chair(s) can then do the updates on their own as long as they think
it

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:14:14 -0500

>without creating the problem you described below.

That can be done through the secrateriate right now.
  WG Milestone Trackers <[email-masked]>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                NAI Labs
Phone: +1 443-259-2352                      Email: [email-masked]

Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.