On Jun 17, 2008, at 5:37 PM, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote: > I agree with Mary - this seems like its just moving work around. > > To reiterate the mantra of SIPPING itself - what PROBLEM are you > trying to solve Dean? Is it that there is not enough people to do > the work? As Mary points out, your suggestion only makes it worse. > Is it to get more meeting slots? Is it to better align IETF work > with the needs of the actual marketplace?
The problem that I'm trying to solve is making the task space manageable. The first thing is to distribute the chair load. Everybody says "The problem isn't the chairs, it;s the lack of reviewers". Well, everybody but the chairs say that, actually. If you look at the current status from the beginning of this thread, you'll see that Keith and I are the long poles in the SIP tent. Sometimes stuff waits a year for us to finish the proto writeup -- usually because when we get to doing the writeup, we find a bajillion errors the reviewers and authors missed. I typically see drafts revved at least twice during the writeup cycle, and that's a heck of a lot of work on the part of the chairs! The second problem is "learning to say no". I think WGs should have very narrowly defined charters and that it should be very, very difficult to add substantial new work to a charter. That is, it should be nearly as difficult to add work to a WG as it is to form up a new WG, and that often, the correct answer actually is "form a new WG". Perhaps even more often, the correct answer is "no". I think developing a SIP extension should be a Big Thing. If it's important enough to develop a SIP extension for, it is probably important enough to charter a working group to develop that extension. It's a Really Bad Idea to have a standing working group that sits around and develops SIP extensions. All that gets us is a whole lot of extensions. It doesn't get us any closer to a draft standard. Working groups shouldn't last ten years. Only in rare circumstances should they last two years, and the average should be more like one year. The key result of this sort of reorg is that a WG, and most especially the chairs of that WG, can be narrowly focused on a small and manageable set of deliverables. We should give them the luxury of doing one job and doing it well. Chairs should be able to do a real day-to-day job and run a working group on the side. I can tell you, SIP doesn't work that way now! Even the lousy job I do requires at least 50% of my working time, and that's going to break the bank eventually. -- Dean _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
