Hi, Alissa, I have made a new version (2.0.9) according to your latest feedback. I have made the below change and deleted the only "including but not limited to” in the previous 2.0.8 version.
OLD: The indicative scope of possible work items includes: NEW: The scope of possible work items are (additional works are subject to extra approval from the responsible AD): The latest change has been upload on wiki https://trac.ietf.org/trac/anima/wiki/Recharter2019 Many thanks and best regards, Sheng > -----Original Message----- > From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 9:23 PM > To: Sheng Jiang <[email protected]> > Cc: Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]>; IESG <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Anima] Alissa Cooper's Block on charter-ietf-anima-01-05: (with > BLOCK and COMMENT) > > Hi Sheng, > > > On Jul 3, 2019, at 10:39 AM, Sheng Jiang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, Alissa, > > > > Thanks for your kindly response. I have made a new version (2.0.8) > > according to > your feedback. Explanation in lines below. > > > > Please see https://trac.ietf.org/trac/anima/wiki/Recharter2019 > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 5:13 AM > >> To: Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > >> Cc: IESG <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [Anima] Alissa Cooper's Block on > >> charter-ietf-anima-01-05: (with BLOCK and COMMENT) > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I’ve been discussing this on my weekly call with the OPS ADs for the > >> last couple of weeks and based on the call that we had earlier today > >> my understanding is that now would be a good time to re-review. > >> > >> Regarding this text: "New work items will be adopted by the WG only > >> if their contributors target them to enter WG last call within a > >> number of IETF meeting cycles agreed by the AD.” > >> > >> I still don’t get this. It is a very common case that contributors > >> think their drafts are going to get through to WGLC in X cycles, and > >> then they end up taking 2X or 10X because some new person wanders > >> into the WG or some other work starts up in another WG that has an > >> intersection with the work or someone changes jobs or any manner of > >> other things. The WG needs milestones with dates, preferably at the point > >> of > approving the re-charter. > >> Those might be missed too, but there might as well not be two sets of > >> markers laid down that are potentially going to be missed rather than one > >> set. > > > > I have just deleted the sentence. It's something the chairs can do during > > the > WG management process. We tried to give draft owners some pressure not to > be too slow by adding these text. I do agree this should not be so rigid as > these > text. So, let's take it out and the chairs will monitor the progress of WG > drafts > closely. > > Thanks. > > > > >> Regarding the “indicative scope of possible work items” — this > >> doesn’t address my concern about the WG’s scope. This charter is in > >> contrast to the current ANIMA charter, which says: "The initial set > >> of work items is limited to the above list to stay focused and avoid > >> 'boiling the ocean’.” I don’t see the rationale for not carrying that > >> forward to the next set of specific work items where WG participants > >> have demonstrated interest and intent to carry the work forward. If > >> that is the list of initial milestone topics listed, then limiting to that > >> makes > sense to me. > > > > I have added a specific list of work items into the initial milestone list. > > > > Obviously, this initial milestone list does NOT cover all the topics > > that WG participants have showed interests and willingness to work on. > > The purpose to have this description of "indicative scope of possible > > work items” are actually two: A, limit the potential work items not to > > be too wide > > I think my disconnect here is that the list doesn’t actually limit the WG’s > scope > because it uses the language “indicative scope of possible work items” and > “including but not limited to.” The five areas of work in this list seem > broad and > large enough to keep the WG busy for quite some time. For the charter to > effectively limit the scope I think it would need to say “The scope of work > items > is limited to:” or something like that. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > > , otherwise, people may take anything has the work "automatic" to the WG; B, > to give the chairs a little bit flexibility to adopt new works beyond the > initial > milestone list. We try to avoid the problem that every time a new draft comes > up, > it may become a charter revision, particularly, giving the current re-charting > process have taken us many months. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Sheng > > > >> Thanks, > >> Alissa > >> > >>> On Jun 10, 2019, at 9:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> I've taken the liberty of posting an update to the draft charter at > >>> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/anima/wiki/Recharter2019. I tried to > >>> respond to all the IESG comments, and in particular: > >>> > >>> (a) I deleted Intent from the summarised reference model framework, > >>> since the reference model doesn't usefully define Intent. > >>> > >>> (b) I tried to make the statement about workload throttling more > >>> implementable. > >>> > >>> (c) I still think that the laundry list of *possible* work items is > >>> useful (it helps to define the scope) but I've tried make it clear > >>> that it is only the "indicative scope of possible work items". > >>> It really isn't mission creep; all the items mentioned relate > >>> directly to the ANI and AF topics. > >>> > >>> (d) I intentionally removed the reference to not covering machine > >>> learning and AI. It isn't suggested anywhere in the reference model, > >>> so why even mention it? > >>> > >>> (e) I fixed nits and tuned the wording in several places. > >>> > >>> I hope this helps. We really need a new charter before Montreal. > >>> WG Chairs and AD, over to you... > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> Brian Carpenter > >>> > >>> On 02-May-19 08:39, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >>>> Hi Alissa, > >>>> > >>>> On 02-May-19 08:05, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker wrote: > >>>> ... > >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> -- > >>>>> -- > >>>>> BLOCK: > >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> -- > >>>>> -- > >>>>> > >>>>> (1) "Acceptance of work items by the WG will be > >>>>> scheduled/throttled so that contributors can target them to enter > >>>>> WG last call after not more than a number of IETF meeting cycles agreed > by the AD." > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't understand the implications of this. What happens if the > >>>>> adopted work items have not entered WGLC after the agreed number > >>>>> of cycles? If the answer is anything other than "the WG abandons > >>>>> the work," I don't understand how this is a throttling mechanism. > >>>>> A throttling mechanism would need an explicit limit on the number > >>>>> of > >> adopted work items at any one time, I think. > >>>> > >>>> I agree that the text is a bit illogical. In a sense it's > >>>> unnecessary, because every WG should be matching its workload to > >>>> its capacity. Maybe that's all we should say, rather than trying to > >>>> describe a > >> slightly vague algorithm? > >>>> > >>>>> (2) The proposed work items is a very large and somewhat unbounded > >>>>> list of items, whereas the purpose of writing a charter is to > >>>>> scope the work of the WG and hopefully set out a realistic work > >>>>> plan that will be accompanied by deployment. For a WG that has > >>>>> produced 5 documents in the last 5 years, I think the charter > >>>>> needs to more narrowly focus on the most highly prioritized work > >>>>> items. Once those are nearing completion, it seems as though > >>>>> evaluation of what is needed next based on deployment experience > >>>>> would then dictate the next > >> set of items for another re-charter. > >>>> > >>>> I think the point here is that now that the relatively small number > >>>> of infrastructure documents are almost finished, the next stage > >>>> opens up the possibilities for a much wider range of work that > >>>> builds on the infrastructure. The priorities aren't even obvious. > >>>> So this goes with the previous point, and to quite some extent the > >>>> criteria will be whether the WG has capacity more than which topic has > priority. > >>>> > >>>> That's why there's a bucket list of work items and a short list of > >>>> immediate milestones. > >>>> > >>>> Would this help? > >>>> > >>>> s/Proposed work items include.../Possible work items include.../ > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> -- > >>>>> -- > >>>>> COMMENT: > >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> -- > >>>>> -- > >>>>> > >>>>> It would be good to see milestones with dates before this gets approved. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think this charter would benefit from an English edit pass > >>>>> before going > >> out for external review. > >>>> > >>>> I'll volunteer, when the open issues have been resolved. > >>>> > >>>>> What is "compounding environment"? > >>>> > >>>> An excellent question. > >>>> > >>>> Brian > >>>> > > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
