A proposal for managing the process of determining the IETF process -------------------------------------------------------------------
History and status ------------------ Since 199x, the IETF's process issues have been handled by a couple of working groups, POISED and POISSON. POISED finished its initial work of defining the IETF process and was closed down; POISSON has tackled issues that have occured since that time. It is a widespread impression that the process currently is not working terribly well. Debates in the WG tend to be wide-ranging, contentious, inconclusive and not terribly well informed; many members of the community are staying away from the WG because they do not relish the style of dialogue; it takes a very long time to get consensus on even reasonably simple things. These are all consistent with the characteristics of long-lived working groups; in other areas, the Right Thing is most of the time to close the working group and start over. This proposal suggests the same thing for POISSON. A new way of attacking the problem ---------------------------------- There are 2 overriding concerns when deciding how to decide policy for the IETF: - The process must be open. Anything else would compromise the essential nature of the IETF. - The process must achieve quality results. Anything else endangers the function and continued existence of the IETF. The proposal below aims to achieve those two things. The proposal is funded on the idea that process work is more like an area than it is like a working group; there are problems that pop up from time to time, there is a need for a constant ability to address issues, there are large and small pieces of work that need to be done. However, the idea of a process area has been tried (and has failed) in the past; for one thing, there simply isn't enough work around to make it necessary to have a whole area for it. Proposal components ------------------- Procedural issues are a task of the General Area of the IETF. The IETF Chair will act as AD for this area, and perform the usual functions of process management for the process-making process. There will no longer be a special IETF process list; instead, issues of interest to the community will be raised on the general IETF list. This list will be used for pre-charter discussion of new items, as well as general process issues. When items of a significant nature are to be considered, working groups will be chartered as needed. Each group will have a scope limited to one or a few documents, or portions of documents, will work out or recycle those documents only, and will then shut down. WG documents will generally be Last Called in the usual fashion and issued as BCPs. Non-WG documents will be discussed as needed, on the IETF list or elsewhere, and will get a 4-week Last Call. At the pleasure of the IETF Chair, there may exist a directorate to help in generating coherent plans for the area. Proposal discussion ------------------- The existence of formalized, short-term working groups may help with the problem of "WG rot" that has characterized the POISSON effort. The increased focus may also help with the problem that POISSON has had with meeting at IETFs: when it is scheduled opposite other meetings, there will always be participants who have no possibility of attending; in particular, most of the IESG will be busy in other meetings. More focused WGs will not need so much attention. Not having a special "process" list is one of the more uncertain aspects of this proposal. The advantages of using the general IETF list are: - A great number of relevant people are already present on this list - It is better linked into the community than a process-only list is likely to be The disadvantage is that all participants will have to read process-related discussions whether they are interested or not. This suggests that the threshold for creating special lists for specific issues should be rather low, even for documents that do not require the full apparatus of spinning up a working group. There is a very real danger that documents that are too small to require a working group will get inadequate review. This can be ameliorated by: - discussing the documents on the IETF list - using 4-week Last Calls, with pointers to appropriate mailing lists - the ADs requesting independent review of documents Comments on this proposal are sought; the general IETF list is the list that this proposal advocates for such comments, but the attempted "process" list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) may be more appropriate for detailed (nitpick-style) discussions. The General AD will monitor all 3 relevant lists, and make a decision on the proposal no earlier than October 19. [END]
