Subject: Listing design teams on charter pages

From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:36:09 -0700

Hi again. One of WGs has an active design team that is working on one 
of our major charter items. That design team has its own open mailing 
list. Someone from that list asked why the design team list isn't on 
the WG charter page like the "main" list.

How do folks feel about this? It would help point to places where WG 
work is being done (in this case, because the main list was too 
busy), but it also could be confusing.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Ken Hornstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:07:02 -0400

>busy), but it also could be confusing.

I'd vote for transparency over confusion (and I personally don't think
it would be that confusing).  If I visited a WG charter page, it sure
would save me some time to know that "foo" is being worked on by a
design team and I should read the design time list archives if I'm
interested in "foo".

--Ken

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 16:32:37 -0400

HI Paul,

We already have the notion that a WG can have an additional web page 
that is pointed to from the charter page.  I think that the charters, 
membership and/or mailing list archives of any design teams that have 
such things would be a valuable thing to include on an additional WG 
web page.

Margaret

At 11:36 AM -0700 10/8/04, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
>Hi again. One of WGs has an active design team that is working on 
>one of our major charter items. That design team has its own open 
>mailing list. Someone from that list asked why the design team list 
>isn't on the WG charter page like the "main" list.
>

---

From: "David B Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 16:35:41 -0400

Hi,

I think it is important that the chairs 1) establish well-balanced
design teams, 2) achieve WG **consensus** on the design team balance
and focus, 3) establish procedures for periodically reporting progress
to the main WG, and 4) let the design teams do their job, with
oversight only from the chairs (and ADs). 

Design teams are normally established to make forward progress on
difficult topics, or when the main WG doesn't appear to be making
progress. Opening the design team mailing list to others could impede
progress; making the design team list read-only would likely lead
others to open discussion of the same issues on the main list, or
non-members trying to become part of the team by proxying messages
through design team members. This would be very distracting to design
team members, who have enough to do already. I have seen this happen
multiple times when striving for open design teams, and it can
seriously impede progress. I agree transparency is good, but, for a
design team, achieving timely results is even more important. Any
proposal of a design team is subject to WG review anyway.

I recommend that the design team be able to work in a closed mailing
list, with the requirements that they file a status report
periodically (say monthly) to the chairs and main list to show they
are making progress, and they should consider the feedback to their
status report. The chairs should be especially vigilant that the
design team is paying attention to WG consensus (not just one or two
very vocal critics). I strongly believe that the chairs should NOT be
design team members, but should monitor the discussions for adherence
to WG consensus.

The design team should probably present their status at each IETF
meeting, with discussion of the issues addressed and decisions made,
to provide additional transparency, at the chairs' discretion.
Sometimes this will NOT be a good thing to do, and the chairs should
decide this.

An open archive of the design team mailing list might lead to issues
being constantly reopened by a few vocal critics who don't favor the
design team decisions, stifling progress. The chairs must protect
against the constant reopening of issues, and should probably keep a
web site showing a summary of the issues that have been discussed and
decided and are now closed (unless WG consensus is that it must be
reopened given new information). The chairs should keep a closed
archive of the design team mailing list discussions for AD perusal to
counter any charge of impropriety. If the design team consents, the
chair might make this public.

I think the existence of the design team should be mentioned on the
charter page, and a pointer to the web site with closed/open issues
would be good. If the design team mailing list must be open to all WG
members, then why have a design team at all?

David Harrington
[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Ken Hornstein
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 3:07 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Listing design teams on charter pages 

>work is being done (in this case, because the main list was too
busy), 
>but it also could be confusing.

--Ken

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 21:42:30 +0100

Hi,

Three points to bring out...

1. The design team should not be set up without an
    announcement on the WG mailing list.
2. Anyone who wants to see who is working on foo
    can look at the WG draft.
3. There is nothing special about a WG design team.
    It is just a team doing design. Other teams are always
    welcome to do design, and that should be clearly
    stated.

That said, why would one not list the members of a design team, or have a separate page
that does so and lists the current best version of the draft, issues being worked on, and
other status things? Perhaps 'cos the WG chairs are too busy :-)

Adrian

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 17:41:26 -0400

>>>>> "David" == David B Harrington <[email-masked]> writes:

    David> Hi, I think it is important that the chairs 1) establish
    David> well-balanced design teams, 2) achieve WG **consensus** on
    David> the design team balance and focus, 3) establish procedures
    David> for periodically reporting progress to the main WG, and 4)
    David> let the design teams do their job, with oversight only from
    David> the chairs (and ADs).
That may be appropriate for one form of design team, but I think two
other forms of design teams are quite common.

1) I often find myself self-organizing design teams; I find the people
   I need to make progress on an issue and communicate with them
   without any formal backing from the WG chair.  I'd consider it a
   imposition if the WG chair tried to oversee my activities provided
   that my contributions to the WG were on topic and followed the
   normal process.  If I can manage to build a consensus without
   interfearing with other efforts then I've made progress.

2) An open design team seems entirely appropriate in cases where you
    need some formal organization but where you are just trying to
    separate efforts.  Just as we may not choose to discuss all IETF
    matters on one mailing list, we may not choose to discuss all WG
    matters on the same mailing list.  

You are correct that an open design team would be inappropriate if the
purpose of the design team was to avoid discussing certain issues on
the main WG list.

--Sam

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:53:19 -0700

In reading this and many of the responses, I note that folks
seem to be using the term "design team" to refer to something
created by the WG.  While some "design teams" are created by
WGs, most are not.  Most are created ad hoc by individuals.

Anways, as far as design teams formed by the WG (e.g., by
WG action), I believe the existing guidelines
(http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/Design-Teams.txt)
are sufficient.  Maybe in some cases, such as teams which
are intended to exist for an extended period of time, it
might be appropriate to publish information on WG pages
(which the charter page can hyperlink to).  In doing so,
I would hope the WG would be careful not to give a
design team any sanction beyond that described by existing
guidelines.

I rather design teams formed by the WG not be list on the
WG charter page as that would imply that they were formed
by IETF (e.g., by IESG action).

Kurt

At 11:36 AM 10/8/2004, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
>Hi again. One of WGs has an active design team that is working on one of our major charter items. That design team has its own open mailing list. Someone from that list asked why the design team list isn't on the WG charter page like the "main" list.
>
>How do folks feel about this? It would help point to places where WG work is being done (in this case, because the main list was too busy), but it also could be confusing.
>
>--Paul Hoffman, Director
>--VPN Consortium

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 12:31:00 +0200

Not about design teams particularly, but one WG already has a couple of 
mailing lists that are not THE list mentioned in the charter.

<http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsext-charter.html> says:

> The DNSEXT Working Group actually uses an additional mailing list for
> discussion of DNS Security related issues. This list is open to
> all:
>
>       Discussion: [email-masked]
>       To Subscribe: [email-masked]
>       Archive: http://www.cafax.se/dnssec/ and
>                           ftp://ftp.cafax.se/pub/archives/dnssec.list
>
> The RFC2535bis document set is edited by a team that can be reached
> through [email-masked]. This team is chartered with
> making editorial changes only, with all substantative changes
> discussed on the WG list. Only the document editors and working group
> chairs are on this list, an archive of the mailing list is available
> at:
>       Archive: http://www.east.isi.edu/projects/DNSSEC

DNSEXT does not have a distinct WG page mentioned in the charter.

Note - I have a little trouble wrapping my head around the idea of a design 
team as described in 2026 being an open group.... are you sure this is not 
a sublist, rather than a design team?

I think the most important thing is openness........... charters and web 
pages are tools to achieve that, not an end in itself.

                  Harald

--On fredag, oktober 08, 2004 11:36:09 -0700 "Paul Hoffman / VPNC" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi again. One of WGs has an active design team that is working on one of
> our major charter items. That design team has its own open mailing list.
> Someone from that list asked why the design team list isn't on the WG
> charter page like the "main" list.
>
> How do folks feel about this? It would help point to places where WG work
> is being done (in this case, because the main list was too busy), but it
> also could be confusing.
>
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
>
>
>