Subject: RE: Response requested: Proposal regarding milestones

From: "Presuhn, Randy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 19:52:38 -0600

Hi -

> From: Andy Bierman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 17:29
> To: Marshall Rose
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Response requested: Proposal regarding milestones
...
> depends on the size and newness of the WG.  It's easy for the Chair
> of a small WG that's been around a long time to tell who is going
> to be positive contributors.

Perhaps, though I think this assumption makes the IETF even more of
an old-boys club than it already is.

...  
> >> >     - what are the membership requirements for design teams and
> >> >       contributors?
> 
> 1) participation in the IETF for at least a year
> 2) agreement (or no objection) from other design team members 
>    and the WG Chair that the person is clueful enough to be on
>    the design team
> 3) agreement from the candidate that they will commit enough
>    hours to meet the schedule imposed on the design team by the
>    WG Chair (based on charter milestones).  This includes attendance
>    at interim meetings and conference calls, not just reading drafts.
> 
> >> >     
> >> >     - how does formalizing the design team and 
> contributor concepts
> >> >       impact the way the wg process works?
> 
> 1) I think the WG Chair should have veto power over design team
>    membership for their WG.  
> 2) A detailed mini-charter and schedule should be created and followed
> 3) Minutes from design team minutes should be posted to the 
>    WG mailing list
> 4) Design team direction should be subject to WG comment. The WG
>    should be able to comment on the design team effort at multiple
>    points in the process, not just the outcome of the design team.
...

Though I appreciate that the intent is to make design teams more
transparent, the effect could be to give them even more clout
than they already have in practice (despite RFC 2418 section 6.5),
by increasing their (perceived) official standing.  (As well as
virtually guaranteeing that their membership would come from the
old boys' network.)

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 [email-masked]  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 15:00:33 -0800

>an old-boys club than it already is.

Not really -- it just means the WG Chair is more likely to know
from past experience who is showing up to do work vs. who is 
showing up to observe.  (The smaller classroom size concept).

>virtually guaranteeing that their membership would come from the

I don't think anything I wrote gives the design team more clout.
The output is still subject to WG approval.  I'm just suggesting 
that the WG should have some idea of the design team direction
and decisions without waiting to the end of the process.  Currently,
there is too much pressure on the WG to accept the design 
team output, rather than waste more time.  (The team was probably
formed in the first place to save time.)  

I think a year of following the IETF (on a mailing list, not
requiring meeting attendance) is a compromise between encouraging
an old boy network and making sure the design team understands
the IETF processes.  This should not be a strict rule.  I think 
at least 1 person on the design team should meet this requirement.

The design team concept isn't always appropriate, but when it
is, the team should be accountable to the WG throughout its
existence. 

Andy