Thanks. I’ll clear my block when the 2.0.9 version gets uploaded to the datatracker. Alissa
> On Jul 16, 2019, at 5:30 AM, Sheng Jiang <jiangsh...@huawei.com> wrote: > > Dear Alissa, > > Could you check whether the latest 2.0.9 version on WiKi addresses your > block. If not, we would like to further modify it according to your new > feedback. We really would like to see progress on rechartering. Many thanks. > > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/anima/wiki/Recharter2019 > > Dear Ignas, could you upload the 2.0.9 version to datatracker? Many thanks, > > Sheng > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Toerless Eckert [mailto:t...@cs.fau.de] >> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 7:34 PM >> To: Alissa Cooper <ali...@cooperw.in>; ibagd...@gmail.com >> Cc: Sheng Jiang <jiangsh...@huawei.com>; Brian E Carpenter >> <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>; IESG <i...@ietf.org>; anima-cha...@ietf.org; >> anima@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Anima] Alissa Cooper's Block on charter-ietf-anima-01-05: (with >> BLOCK and COMMENT) >> >> Thanks for the update, Sheng! >> Ignas: can you pls. upload wiki 2.0.9 charter to datatracker ? >> >> Alissa: Thanks for your comments. I hope that the latest 2.0.9 version on >> the wiki >> as proposed by Sheng resolves your block. If not, then it would be great if >> we >> could accelerate resolving them so that we could actually start working on >> charter >> 2 @ IETF105. >> >> I think we always intended for what you proposed to be true, e.g: that whats >> not >> listed in the target work areas would require AD approval to be chartered. I >> guess >> we never wrote that explicitly because we had some even more specific >> mentioning of explicit AD approval cases in earlier versions of the proposed >> charter and those sentence got argued away by reviewers as being too >> procedural and unnecessary for a charter. >> >> Cheers >> Toerless >> >> On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 09:23:01AM -0400, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> Hi Sheng, >>> >>>> On Jul 3, 2019, at 10:39 AM, Sheng Jiang <jiangsh...@huawei.com> 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:ali...@cooperw.in] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 5:13 AM >>>>> To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> >>>>> Cc: IESG <i...@ietf.org>; anima-cha...@ietf.org; anima@ietf.org >>>>> 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 >>>>> <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> 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 >>>>>>> >>>> >> >> -- >> --- >> t...@cs.fau.de _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
