Subject: Milestones

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:20:29 +0100

I am bringing this to WG chairs list, cause I think here
is a simple thing that all WG chairs can easily HELP with.

Margaret says (whole email is below for context if needed):

> PLEASE NOTE:  MOST PEOPLE IN THE IETF DO NOT TAKE THE
                MILESTONES SERIOUSLY.

So why do we (you) as WG chairs not change that ?

> If the responsible AD believes that a milestone update is a high priority,
> he should make that clear to the chairs, and preferably include a deadline
> by which the update should be completed.  Then, the chairs should update
> the milestones.
>
I think I (and most ADs) have asked many times. Do we want to fire you
for not updating the milestones? I am not aware any of us has done so.

> If it becomes a pattern that the chairs are not responsive to the priorities
> set by the AD, he should talk to them about it and try to figure out why.
> But, if the chairs remain non-responsive, they should be replaced.

I would really appreciate it if all WG chairs took say half an hour (if that
much) right now and updatedtheir milestones with realistic dates and let us
know. Let us at the same time all agree that we will take these milestones
more seriously from now on.

How is that for an X-mas thought?

Thanks,
Bert

-----Original Message-----
From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: dinsdag 10 december 2002 12:24
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Cc: Marshall Rose; Sam Hartman; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking

>Obviously the WG chairs think that getting these products out the door is
>more important than updating the list of milestones.
>Obviously I don't agree with them (since I bothered to complain), but I
>haven't pushed the issue.

The question is not what you (Harald) think that is important to update
the milestones, but whether Bill or Alex thinks it is important (whichever
is the AD for OSPF).

I don't know enough about the OSPF WG to know if the chairs also do all of
the technical work.  But, it seems unlikely that updating the milestones
(just to mark what is done and clean up any glitches) is actually mutually
exclusive with continuing to move products out the door...

PLEASE NOTE:  MOST PEOPLE IN THE IETF DO NOT TAKE THE MILESTONES SERIOUSLY.
As long as that is our general culture, don't expect anyone to take
updating them seriously.  I've been trying (somewhat unsuccessfully) to
change this in my groups, so that we will have goals to manage towards.
But, it isn't easy in a culture where milestones are a laughing stock.

People in my groups often seem surprised when I ask them to "sign-up"
for milestones and/or send them reminders about upcoming milestones.

>What do you think should be done *now* about OSPF?

If the responsible AD believes that a milestone update is a high priority,
he should make that clear to the chairs, and preferably include a deadline
by which the update should be completed.  Then, the chairs should update
the milestones.

If it becomes a pattern that the chairs are not responsive to the priorities
set by the AD, he should talk to them about it and try to figure out why.
But, if the chairs remain non-responsive, they should be replaced.

In this particular case (OSPF) which has been a successful WG for a
long time, the chairs should certainly not be replaced lightly or over
a relatively small thing like milestone updates (assuming that is the
only problem).

And shutting down the OSPF WG because one or two people are not doing one
relatively small aspect of their job would be incredibly silly.

Margaret

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:49:59 -0500

[something odd is happening to my wgchairs subscription.  it's
bouncing back and forth between my sun and my alum.mit.edu
addresses..]

> So why do we (you) as WG chairs not change that ?

It's another secret handshake to learn?

I just went looking on the wgchairs page for instructions on how and
when to update milestones and I can't find them.  

Doesn't seem to be part of the WG chair training, either.

					- Bill

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 22:41:18 +0100

>From the milestone reminders message:

Note: Changes to existing milestones (or due dates) require Area
Director approval. Comments, requests, or status reports should
sent to your Area Directors.

To report a milestone achieved, send a message to [email-masked]
You can also include the completion date; otherwise the date the message is
received will be recorded.

Yes, I have asked for this text to end up on a sub-page of the WG chairs 
page.

                    Harald

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:33:26 -0800

At 10:41 PM 12/10/2002 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>Yes, I have asked for this text to end up on a sub-page of the WG chairs page.

Please enumerate the different email addresses on this new page and their purpose.
I know of:
  [email-masked]
  [email-masked]
  [email-masked]
  [email-masked]
Perhaps there are more?

>                   Harald

thanks,
Andy

>--On tirsdag, desember 10, 2002 15:49:59 -0500 Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 22:56:56 -0500

I'll through in this suggestion because it is what we intend to do to 
fix the provreg milestones:

YR MON Submit <doc title> to IESG for <standards track/info level>

for each of our remaining document work items.  Also, before draft 
standard, there will be an interoperability report, i.e., there may 
be other milestones in there too.

I'm not saying this will be a pancea, but it is what we think we need 
to solidfy the work items in our group.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:57:09 -0500

>
>Even when chairs try to be responsive to updating milestones, for a 
>busy/productive WG, milestone updates can take literally months from 
>initial request until they appear on the web page,

This has not been my experience.

My milestone updates, and even charter updates, have typcially
appeared on the web site within a few days of being approved by
my AD...

I wouldn't object to a more automated process that doesn't require
human intervention by the secretariat, though.

Margaret

---

From: Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 12:05:55 -0800

> How is that for an X-mas thought?

Hi Bert,

Even when chairs try to be responsive to updating milestones, for a 
busy/productive WG, milestone updates can take literally months from 
initial request until they appear on the web page, by which point at 
they probably need to be updated again, or get confused with a 
previously requested update (oh you marked that one as Done, but you 
asked to change to date to Nov). If the chairs are asking their AD for 
a bunch of useful stuff, approving milestones is likely (rightly so) to 
get prioritized below reviewing docs before IESG last call, etc..  
Note, that I am not talking about just pushing dates back ad infinitum.

My suggestion is that chairs get direct write access to their charter 
page for minor edits without going through ietf-action. This would 
include changing milestone dates, marking milestones as Done, deleting 
milestones, changing the wording of existing milestones, updating the 
mailing list pointers, and pointers to a supplemental web site.  The AD 
would get notification of these changes, and could roll them back by 
just replying to the notification.

Updating the charter and adding milestones would continue to use our 
existing process.

I would consider that an excellent xmas present.  If we can't do that, 
then I suggest we just add milestone dates to the ID-tracker and 
replace the entire milestones section from the charter page with a link 
to draft tracker.

thanks,
-rohan

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:22:45 -0800

At 12:05 PM 12/11/2002 -0800, Rohan Mahy wrote:

>Even when chairs try to be responsive to updating milestones, for a busy/productive WG, milestone updates can take literally months from initial request until they appear on the web page, by which point at they probably need to be updated again, or get confused with a previously requested update (oh you marked that one as Done, but you asked to change to date to Nov). If the chairs are asking their AD for a bunch of useful stuff, approving milestones is likely (rightly so) to get prioritized below reviewing docs before IESG last call, etc..  

This has not been my experience at all. I send an email to ietf-action and cc: Bert,
and Steve Coya updates the charter within a couple days.

>My suggestion is that chairs get direct write access to their charter page for minor edits without going through ietf-action. This would include changing milestone dates, marking milestones as Done, deleting milestones, changing the wording of existing milestones, updating the mailing list pointers, and pointers to a supplemental web site.  The AD would get notification of these changes, and could roll them back by just replying to the notification.

This is overkill, especially considering how infrequently this needs
to be done.

>Updating the charter and adding milestones would continue to use our existing process.
>
>I would consider that an excellent xmas present.  If we can't do that, then I suggest we just add milestone dates to the ID-tracker and replace the entire milestones section from the charter page with a link to draft tracker.

I like to see the milestones on the charter page to quickly get an idea
how far along the WG is on its tasks.

Andy