At 03:18 PM 4/15/2002 +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
Shutting down working groups when they fail to meet milestones is an option,
but it certainly doesn't help that other working group you mentioned, which
is waiting on the results of the one which is deadlocked.
That other working group is already
Dave Crocker wrote:
Query to the group: If we believe we should not hold working
groups to their milestones, why bother to have those milestones?
Same question for charters: If we believe we should not hold working groups to their
charters, why bother to have those charters?
Michel.
Opinion: An unenforced directive is guidance, not a rule. The separate
items under consideration may be considered guidance and not rules
and treated accordingly.
Jim
Michel Py wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
Query to the group: If we believe we should not hold working
groups to their
On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 08:14, Dave Crocker wrote:
That other working group is already being not served. Holding a working
group to its milestones makes the situation more explicit.
Query to the group: If we believe we should not hold working groups to
their milestones, why bother to
Dissolving a dysfunctional working group also allows for a reset, e.g.,
telling the first group that was waiting for a solution to develop a
more narrowly focused solution itself when the attempt at a broad
solution has failed.
Dave Crocker wrote:
At 03:18 PM 4/15/2002 +0700, Robert Elz
Query to the group: If we believe we should not hold working groups to
their milestones, why bother to have those milestones?
It's useful for a group to have a sense of direction and an anticipated
timetable even if there is no penalty for changing the direction or failure
to meet that
At 08:14 AM 4/16/02 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
Query to the group: If we believe we should not hold working groups to
their milestones, why bother to have those milestones?
I think there's a useful middle ground between slavery to milestones and
completely ignoring them.
I think a group that
On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 01:20:40PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
Suggestions:
- limit the goals: charter most groups to only do tasks that can reasonably
be completed within a year, or 18 months at the most. allow a six month
extension when necessary, but expect that the group will *shut
Date:Sun, 14 Apr 2002 14:59:39 -0400
From:Henning Schulzrinne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| A spec in a WG work item
| generally gets some amount of exclusivity, in that the working group
| isn't going to consider a similar spec by a
Dave Crocker wrote:
and, by the way, there is plenty of experience suggesting that
time pressure often improves quality. it focuses the group
and emphasizes near-term utility. within discussions about
project management, it is usually recognized that milestones
are not merely for
Also, as efforts become more interconnected, working groups have
customers even within the IETF. It's not good if working group A can't
proceed in publishing a spec because of normative references from
working group B that can't get its act together. In that sense,
milestones are a contract
Another, very different reaction to the disparity between promise and
accomplishment is to ensure that working groups meet their milestones.
and if they don't we reduce their salaries, right?
At 04:34 PM 4/13/2002 -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
Another, very different reaction to the disparity between promise and
accomplishment is to ensure that working groups meet their milestones.
and if they don't we reduce their salaries, right?
or perhaps leverage more appropriate to our
At 05:28 PM 4/13/2002 -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
of course. but making milestones, especially in a culture reknown
for poor estimation, seems to be a rather minor aspect of producing
quality. and i believe the latter to be far more important, and to
be more difficult to judge, motivate, guide,
of course. but making milestones, especially in a culture reknown
for poor estimation, seems to be a rather minor aspect of producing
quality. and i believe the latter to be far more important, and to
be more difficult to judge, motivate, guide, ...
high quality that misses its market
without being blocked by politics and incompetent
leadership.
Michel.
-Original Message-
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 4:50 PM
To: Randy Bush
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-etal-ietf-analysis-00.txt
At 04:34 PM 4/13/2002
Randy Bush wrote:
of course. but making milestones, especially in a culture reknown
for poor estimation, seems to be a rather minor aspect of producing
quality. and i believe the latter to be far more important, and to
be more difficult to judge, motivate, guide, ...
I don't call waiting
randy, apparently you missed your own words. you said rather minor, not
part of. that is an explicit effort to deprecate its role.
and, by the way, there is plenty of experience suggesting that time
pressure often improves quality. it focuses the group and emphasizes
near-term utility.
At 11:05 AM 3/30/02 -0800, Peter Deutsch wrote:
Your mileage may vary, etc but if people are taking the IETF work and
not growing it in the IETF, I personally conclude that the IETF is
failing to provide a suitable home for new ideas.
It seems to me that being a suitable home for new ideas and
On 31 Mar 2002 at 10:53 -0500, Melinda Shore allegedly wrote:
At 11:05 AM 3/30/02 -0800, Peter Deutsch wrote:
Your mileage may vary, etc but if people are taking the IETF work and
not growing it in the IETF, I personally conclude that the IETF is
failing to provide a suitable home for new
Bob Braden wrote:
Mark Adam wrote:
Ok... So I'm being a little idealistic, but this is different that just
saying Me too to the We ain't makin' widgets responses. Optimally we
should judge the work of a WG based on how well its output is accepted by
the world at large, but that's a little
g'day,
Greg Skinner wrote:
. . .
I don't feel comfortable with the notion that the work of a WG should be
judged according to adoption of its protocols, particularly in terms of
traffic generated. All protocols are not equal; some have limited
utility by design, as they serve a limited
On Mar 28, Ian Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True, though I thought LOC counting was done as an initial metric until
(much) better things were found.
Actually it's what poor management did until (much) better management were
found to replace them. LOC has no value to anybody other than
At 01:53 PM 3/29/02 +, Paul Robinson wrote:
Now,
I'm not saying this shouldn't have been written and the authors have wasted
their time, but am I the only one who thinks this smells a little of an
attempt at the over-engineering of a voluntary group?
Probably not, but I don't think so. My
It almost sounds like we want to reward the WGs which complete their work
while producing the _least_ amount of documentation. If we assume that a
document is good and complete then the most concise representation
should be the easiest to work with.
Ok... So I'm being a little idealistic, but
g'day,
Mark Adam wrote:
It almost sounds like we want to reward the WGs which complete their work
while producing the _least_ amount of documentation. If we assume that a
document is good and complete then the most concise representation
should be the easiest to work with.
Ok... So I'm
Mark Adam wrote:
Ok... So I'm being a little idealistic, but this is different that just
saying Me too to the We ain't makin' widgets responses. Optimally we
should judge the work of a WG based on how well its output is accepted by
the world at large, but that's a little late in the
Peter Deutsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The implications for this seem clear enough. It seems to imply that the
amount of traffic per protocol the activity goes on to generate is a
reasonable milestone for any IETF activity. This doesn't mean the POISED
list (or heck, even the IETF general
*
* A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
*
*
*Title : Toward a Quantitative Analysis of IETF Productivity
*Author(s) : M. Rose, D. Crocker
*Filename: draft-etal-ietf-analysis-00.txt
*Pages
Increasingly, the most important standards RFCs may be the
(ill-advised) ones we DON'T publish.
from my experience on IESG, there are far too few of these.
there's nothing wrong with looking at aggregate data about working groups'
production of RFCs. of course, one should be careful about
*
* * though I wish that WGs that shut down without producing a protocol
* document would at least write up a brief RFC that explains what it
* tried to do and why it shut down - was the problem too hard or
* infeasible, was the subject too politically contentious (and what
* were
John Stracke wrote:
And the authors do caution that their numbers are blind to the quality of
the RFCs. Their point, though, is that looking at the easy metrics is
better than not measuring anything at all;
Wrong information is worse than no information. If the results don't
mean
John Stracke wrote:
And the authors do caution that their numbers are blind to the quality
of
the RFCs. Their point, though, is that looking at the easy metrics is
better than not measuring anything at all;
Wrong information is worse than no information. If the results don't
mean
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:12:21 PST, Lars Eggert said:
Wrong information is worse than no information. If the results don't
mean anything, why measure?
Often, just knowing *why* the results dont mean anything is informative..
Back about a century ago, these two chaps named Michaelson and Morley
--On Thursday, March 28, 2002 12:25 -0800 Mark Atwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Stracke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And the authors do caution that their numbers are blind to the quality
of the RFCs. Their point, though, is that looking at the easy metrics
is better than not measuring
Counting RFCs looks like it's bad the same way that pure LOC counts
are bad.
err, okay, i guess.
however, it may be useful for folks to actually read the draft before making
comments... thus far, i've only seen two folks with comments who claim to have
actually read the thing.
as an author
however, it may be useful for folks to actually read the draft
before making comments... thus far, i've only seen two folks with
comments who claim to have actually read the thing.
OK, here's a new data point: I read it all and I have no comment. It
is neither more nor less than it purports
37 matches
Mail list logo
