Jari - Thanks for the excellent writeup of the situation; the hypothesis regarding the problem and the experiment to address look to be a an appropriate response.
Thanks! /John On Jul 29, 2013, at 5:07 AM, IETF Chair <[email protected]> wrote: > I would like to report an experiment that the IESG is starting. (There's also > an associated blog article about this at > http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/07/the-role-of-working-groups/) > > Internet Drafts sent for approval as RFCs are reviewed by individuals during > the IETF Last Call, the Area Directors, IANA, as well as a number of > volunteers from various directorates and review teams. The reviews from these > teams has gained a significant role in ensuring that the IETF produces > high-quality, understandable and implementable RFCs. > > Yet, as discussed in http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/05/balancing-the-process/ > we have a general problem that quite a lot of the work around IETF documents > happens at the end of the process. In particular, a number of the reviews > during IETF last call point out issues that end up being raised by the IESG > as comments. It is of course good that issues are caught, but raising them > earlier would be better. And it would be better if the working groups - the > intended focus point of work on a topic - would get to handle them, as > opposed to raising these issues with the IESG. The has IESG discussed these > issues and decided to experiment with three actions designed to move more > work to the responsibility of the working groups: > > (1) Perform some reviews that are now happening at IETF Last Call a bit > earlier. This will put the working group in a bigger role in resolving > cross-area and general issues. > > (2) Invite document shepherds on IESG telechats when there's a document that > is likely to require discussion. This will make it possible for the document > shepherd to be directly involved in the discussions. > > (3) When a document up for approval has a number of issues, hand over the > process back to the working group, as opposed to the IESG tracking the > issues. Among other things, this will ensure that changes are discussed in an > open working group list and agreed through consensus. > > We are at the beginning of the experiment. We've done (2) and (3) a few times > and plan to use it more from now on. We are discussing with the review teams > to plan how (1) comes into effect. Building quality and cross-area review to > the process earlier is of course a big effort. We are making a small change > to current directorate review procedures. If successful, this will enable > working groups to deal with issues before IETF Last Call and IESG review and > empower the working groups to be in charge of the documents throughout their > life cycle. We are also hoping that document quality will improve and number > of issues discussed in the IESG will be lower. > > From the point of view of the document authors and WG participants, all the > above works through your working group chairs. They will be talking to you > when documents come back to the working group. They or the document shepherds > will be even more part of the IESG discussions and will keep the working > groups updated on the progress of the documents. They will work with review > teams to request earlier review. You will be seeing some reviews in the > working group mailing lists. The current plan is to do these reviews after > WGLC has completed, in parallel with ongoing reviews from your responsible > ADs and chairs preparing the write-ups for the document to be submitted to > the IETF Last Call. > > While the number of reviews as such is not changed, some additional effort > and care will however be required from the reviewers, directorate > coordinators/secretaries, the working group chairs, and other participants. > The experiment will show us whether this effort is reasonable and if there > are any unexpected effects. The experiment is performed on a voluntary basis > by each directorate, for a limited number of drafts at the beginning. > > We will be collecting experiences so that in six months we can evaluate the > experience. I would also like to thank the document shepherds, chairs, and > review teams for participation in this effort! > > Jari >
