The routing ADs have started an effort to improve the quality and productivity in the routing area. Please read the following.
Note that the discussion will happen on the [email protected] mailing list. It is an open mailing list, so subscribe and participate. --Sandy Begin forwarded message: > From: Alia Atlas <[email protected]> > Subject: Improving and Restructuring the Routing Area > Date: June 10, 2014 3:57:45 PM EDT > To: [email protected] > > To all participants in the Routing Area, > > Adrian and I are working on improving the quality, speed, and > experience of getting work done in the IETF Routing Area. There are > three initiatives that we are working: WG Draft QA, Routing Area > specific WG chair training, and reorganizing the working groups in the > area. > > First, we intend to use our Routing Directorate more proactively by > introducing a Working Group Draft Quality Assurance (WG Draft QA) > process where the same selected routing directorate member will review > a draft during WG draft adoption and during WG last call. The process > will be documented on the Routing Area wiki > (http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki). This should allow > directorate reviews to report technical issues that can actually get > fixed early in the process (equivalent of bug reports) as opposed to > just noting the concerns in the drafts (equivalent of release notes). > > Second, as was discussed during the recent IESG retreat, in addition > to the IETF-wide WG chair training, we intend to have a series of > training sessions for WG Chairs in the Routing Area addressing topics > such as judging consensus, project management, motivating volunteers, > using the datatracker (via a sandbox version that can be played > with safely), and sharing experiences between WG chairs. > > Third, we intend to reorganize the working groups in the Routing area. > We feel that it is important to focus on areas where there is active > interest in standardization and to be open and able to accept new work > into the area. As you know, we have had several new working groups > (nvo3, i2rs, sfc, spring) created in the last few years and we need to > be open and able to handle more new work as it comes in. We would > also like to improve the signal-to-noise ratio experienced by > participants in the different working groups and improve the quantity > and quality of discussion and reviews. It is likely that not all WGs > in the Routing Area will be directly affected. > > Here is the time-line for reorganizing the WGs. > > NOW: public discussion on [email protected] about how to > reorganize the working groups to best meet our motivations. > Additional focused discussions are expected on the > [email protected] and [email protected] mailing lists. > > In Toronto: There will be meetings with the WG chairs and the > Routing Directorate to get the ideas described and agreed upon. > > At the Routing Area Meeting in Toronto: Discuss the set of > reorganized WGs and general charter content in the Routing Area > meeting. > > September 2014: Based upon the feedback, suggestions, and > discussion, Adrian and I finalize the reorganized WG charters. We > start the internal IESG discussion and public reviews. > > October 2014: Formal rechartering process completes. > > In Honolulu: The new set of WGs meet. > > After Honolulu: Adrian and I deal with any issues and charter > updates based upon a few months of experience. > > Here are the motivations that Adrian and I would like to be considered > when coming up with ideas for how the WGs should be reorganized. > > 1) Move towards organizing working groups on functional > responsibilities rather than scoping them to specific protocols. > > 2) Split giant working groups so relevant work is done in one place > and there is an improved signal-to-noise ratio for participants who > are only interested in a slice of the current working group's work. > > 3) Create synergies for scattered functionality (example ideas: > OAM, FRR, traffic-engineering) > > 4) Create a DISPATCH working group for clear new idea discussion; > rtgwg serves some of this purpose but doesn't have a clear process > and isn't drawing in the new ideas. > > 5) Focus Routing Area time on design centers rather than on far > corner cases. > > 6) Each working group should have clear, well defined, and achievable > goals. > > Noting that the Routing Area has inherited some of its WG structure > from the sub-IP area, it is not a goal to force IP routing and MPLS > routing to remain separated. > > The goal of this reorganization is not closing working groups. Adrian > and Alia are perfectly capable of closing working groups without going > through restructuring. > > For those of you that have read this far, thank you. Getting this 80% > right is going to take some serious discussion and thought. We all > work in the Routing Area together with different perspectives. Please > think carefully and help us have a highly focused discussion. > > Thanks, > Alia and Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
