Subject: Re: engineering discipline WAS: stats from the text conferencing experiment

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 07:28:19 -0500

Hi John,

>I agree.  One suggestion is that endless email discussions be
>brought to a conclusion and made into an Internet Draft.  For
>example, the current Site Local / PI / GUPPI or whatever it is
>now discussion on the IPv6 mailing list has gotten out of hand,
>IMO.

I think that everyone knows and agrees that the IPv6 mailing list
has a strong tendency to get out-of-hand.  Practical suggestions
for how to avoid this, without causing larger problems, are
appreciated.  However, I would not agree with the characterization
that the pre-Atlanta site-local discussion and the current
GUPI discussion are the same discussion.

For the current topic, I happen to know that a number of drafts
are underway, in fact Steve Bellovin has already posted one.  We
also have a couple of drafts available from the multi6 group.
I have serious doubts, though, that the emergence of these
drafts will do anything to slow down the volume of mail on the
IPv6 list.

The type of discipline I was talking about, though, is not
mailing list discipline, but engineering discipline.

How can we convince a large group of people to:

         - Minimize design complexity to keep implementation
                 costs low and reliability high?
         - Remove features that are not widely implemented
                 or deployed, instead of arguing that they
                 should be left in because they _might_ be
                 useful?
         - Understand the problem statement, and design the
                 simplest solution that solves the problem?
         - Do the work that needs to be done to finish the
                 base protocol, instead of inventing optional
                 features or running off and examining every
                 "interesting problem" that comes along.
                 [This most often manifests itself in a lack
                 of interest in writing or reviewing MIBs.]

We've tried, in the past, to force some discipline through
charters.  However, the way the IETF is organized, there
is no way for WG chairs to hold the line.  People who want
to do unchartered work can:  ask for a BOF, submit the
work as individual drafts to the RFC editor, bring it
to the IESG through a different AD, etc.

What would really work is if we could foster an environment
where engineering discipline is one of our core values, and
where it is "cool" to make decisions that simplify and
focus our work, rather than our current status where it is
cool to invent a whole new protocol and/or identify an
"interesting" problem and pursue it.

Are there any ways that we could do that?

Margaret

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:51:35 -0500

>as you hint, it is far from evident how we can encourage the
>cultural change to make this a core and operational value, as
>opposed to phrases we say to appear sensible while we push for the
>particular straws we feel are justified.  reducing others' features
>is easy, it is our own which are hard to restrain.  but the union
>of all those desires is, imiho, far too large.

All of us have a particular fondness for our own ideas -- I know
that I can build a kludge tower as well as anyone else.  Which is
why we need a community of people who share these values, so that
we can push back on each other.

>we, as individuals, have to be willing to stand up and say "sorry,
>but that makes me uneasy.  is it *really* necessary?  is it clearly
>the simplest and best way to meet a real need?"

...and we have to learn to be receptive when other people say
this about our own work.

I don't think that this effort can or should start with the IESG
and the IAB (although I agree that the buck stops there).  It
needs to start in the WGs, on the mailing lists, in the design
teams, etc.

I'm under the impression that the IETF once had this sort of
culture, and that it is still exemplified, for some, in the phrase
"rough consensus and running code".  Where did it go?  And how do
we get it back?

Margaret

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:04:13 -0800

> we can push back on each other.

and not fear and distrust eachother.  the difficulty of this
increases proportionally to the square of the number of people
involved.

randy

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 20:20:02 -0500

>increases proportionally to the square of the number of people

So, you think that size of the groups is a big contributor to the
problem?

Do you think that this is an organizational issues (i.e. should we
organize into smaller groups, somehow), or just inherent in the
entire IETF being as large as it it?

Perhaps we could try to build smallish design review teams in each
area that could build this sort of culture amongst themselves and
feed it back to the WGs?  These teams might also help provider earlier
design review, and eliminate some of the problems that have been
identified with late problem detection.

I know that the IESG and the IAB try to foster the right type of
thinking, but I don't think it is possible for so few people to
educate such a huge organization directly, and it is hardest, and
least effective, to inject this sort of thinking at the end of the
process.

Margaret

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 18:21:44 -0800

>>> All of us have a particular fondness for our own ideas -- I
>>> know that I can build a kludge tower as well as anyone else.
>>> Which is why we need a community of people who share these
>>> values, so that we can push back on each other.

the latter.  some factors

  o folk don't know eachother, or not as well, so trust is more of
    a leap of faith as opposed to based on experience

  o higher incidence of really destructive people.  and we know
    that one sociopath can stop the work of a hundred hard workers.

> feed it back to the WGs?

trust and comfort are not transitive, they decay exponentially per
hop

randy

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 07:15:32 -0500

>     a leap of faith as opposed to based on experience

This makes sense.  But, maybe there are ways that we could work to
get people to know each other better?  This might promote trust
and communication...

One of the surprising things to me, after becoming a WG chair, was
that the WG chairs don't seem to work as a team at all.  There are
no area WG chair meetings (at least in the areas that I'm in --
Internet and OPS/NM), and most of the inter-group communication goes
through the IESG.

Do you think that is something we should work on?  Maybe if more
of the WG chairs knew each other, it would be easier for us to
bring each other into technical discussions when appropriate, etc.

My proposal of "design review teams", or something like that, was
an attempt to do something similar for the top technical people, who
don't really seem to know each other, either.

>     that one sociopath can stop the work of a hundred hard workers.

I suppose that this is a cost that we pay for being more visible
than we once were?  Or were we just better, in the earlier days,
at recognizing these people and getting rid of them somehow?

>trust and comfort are not transitive, they decay exponentially per

So, what are the alternatives?  Is there some way that we can
regain the trust and accountability at all levels that made the
current system work?  Or do we just need to accept that it is gone
and build a system that works on some other principles?

Margaret

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 08:30:54 -0800

> Internet and OPS/NM), and most of the inter-group communication goes

there is an ops-nm area meeting every other ietf or so.  though
they have not been overly productive except for the one where there
was the shocking (to nm vendors) discovery that operators did not
use snmp to configure their networks (except docsis-based fan-out).

there was a general wg chairs get-together in atlanta.  i am sad
that i was unable to be there.

> bring each other into technical discussions when appropriate, etc.

how?

> So, what are the alternatives?

most human cultures seem to respond to the strains of scale by
adding process.  of course, this makes them more vulnerable to
stultification, take-over, and filibuster.

randy

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 15:53:45 -0500

>use snmp to configure their networks (except docsis-based fan-out).

I remember that meeting, and it was pretty shocking...

In general, I think that area meetings are good to general issues
that affect the area, but they are too big to serve as a useful
forum for people to meet each other.

>that i was unable to be there.

I thought the WG chairs party was very positive, and I'm also sad
that you were unable to be there.  Hopefully we'll do it again at
another IETF.

> > bring each other into technical discussions when appropriate, etc.

Maybe try to get WG chairs from an area together at the IETF?  Or,
make the area chairs mailing lists more active, and raise general
area issues on that list?

Or, perhaps, when there is a situation that involves two WGs the
ADs could point the WG chairs at each other, ask them to work out a
resolution and get back to the AD?  It might not work so well at
first, but over time it might help WG chairs to get a broader
perspective and start going to each other first, rather than
immediately going to the AD...

>stultification, take-over, and filibuster.

Yes, I agree that seems to be what normally happens, and I suppose
it may be unavoidable...

Margaret