Subject: IESG note on design teams

From: Harald Alvestrand - IETF Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 07:43:35 +0100

Folks,

Since the question of the use of design teams was brought up during the IETF
plenary Wednesday night it seems reasonable for the IESG to provide some 
guidance on the topic of design teams developed within a WG to assist with 
its work.

This does not apply to individual efforts that start and exist outside any 
WG.

The following text will be entered somewhere on the IETF web pages as an 
IESG statement. It is sent to this list first for your reading and 
commenting pleasure.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design teams are mentioned in The Working Group Guidelines RFC (RFC 2418)
as follows:

6.5. Design teams

   It is often useful, and perhaps inevitable, for a sub-group of a
   working group to develop a proposal to solve a particular problem.
   Such a sub-group is called a design team.  In order for a design team
   to remain small and agile, it is acceptable to have closed membership
   and private meetings.  Design teams may range from an informal chat
   between people in a hallway to a formal set of expert volunteers that
   the WG chair or AD appoints to attack a controversial problem.  The
   output of a design team is always subject to approval, rejection or
   modification by the WG as a whole.

The key point here is that the output of a design team is input to a
working group, not a final document.  Such a document must not be
considered as more important than any other input to the working group.

Anyone can write an alternative proposal and ask the working group to
consider it. The decision on which document to work further on must be made
by the consensus of the working group. If design teams work as intended,
their output will be of a quality that speaks for itself.

Working group chairs should note that there is a potential of anti-trust
liability if a design team is formed with a restricted membership and then
the output is given priority over other input to the process.

Any time the Working Group decides to form a design team:
  - it must have a clear terse mission statement that must be posted
    on the working group mailing list.
  - the membership of the design team must also be public and posted
    to the mailing list.
  - any design team that lasts for more than a few months should make
    regular public reports on what they are doing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This note was edited for the IESG by Scott Bradner.

---

From: George Swallow <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 09:30:15 -0500

Harald -

>     regular public reports on what they are doing.

I'm assuming that submitting an updated ID to each IETF meeting meets
this requirement, no?

...George

==================================================================
George Swallow       Cisco Systems                  (978) 497-8143
                     250 Apollo Drive
                     Chelmsford, Ma 01824

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 01:35:02 -0800 (PST)

Harald, 

Good to see the clarification. One comment below.

regards,
suresh

> IESG statement. It is sent to this list first for your reading and 

I believe, the point raised in the plenary was concerning the discretion
used by WG chair(s) in creating the closed group for a design team.
Specifically, if the WG chair preferred an approach (or) a set of a 
individuals, unfairly, to constitute the design team. Doing so would be 
unfair to the contributors left out, either because of their difference
in approach (or) because of not being in the preferred-list-of-designers
of the WG chair(s). 

I would suggest adding a sentence that confirms that the onus is on the
WG chair(s) to ensure that all measures are taken to assure the spirit
of fair pariticipation of all technically competent people and proposals
to the design team. 

>     regular public reports on what they are doing.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 02:00:00 -0800

| I would suggest adding a sentence that confirms that the onus is on the
 | WG chair(s) to ensure that all measures are taken to assure the spirit
 | of fair pariticipation of all technically competent people and proposals
 | to the design team.

I would oppose doing that as it would force the WG chair to dilute the
effectiveness of the design team.  This would be a lever for every Tom,
Dick and Harry to use to force their way onto the team, resurrecting the
exact same problem that design teams were meant to solve.

I would counter-propose that the current language could be enhanced to
point out that:

- The WG chair can appoint multiple design teams to attack a particular
  problem, one for each of the approaches that WG members feel is worthy of
  investigation.

- WG members themselves can collaborate to make another, independent
  proposal to the WG.

 | > Anyone can write an alternative proposal and ask the working group to
 | > consider it. The decision on which document to work further on must be
 | > made by the consensus of the working group. If design teams work as
 | > intended, their output will be of a quality that speaks for itself.
 | > 
 | > Working group chairs should note that there is a potential of
 | > anti-trust liability if a design team is formed with a restricted
 | > membership and then the output is given priority over other input to
 | > the process.

If the above is true, then the output of alternative design teams, whether
appointed by the WG chair or not, should have equal weight and should be
duly considered by the WG.

Tony

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 02:00:00 -0800

Tony

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 09:30:09 -0800 (PST)

I understand and do not have an issue with the proposal below. 
The proposal below would allow for multiple design teams to be 
created by the WG chair(s) and/or collaborating individuals within
the WG.

regards,
suresh

> duly considered by the WG.

=====