One document matched: draft-ietf-problem-process-01.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-problem-process-00.txt
Internet-Draft M. Wasserman, Editor
Document: draft-ietf-problem-process-01.txt Wind River
Expires: December 2003 June 2003
IETF Problem Resolution Processes
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [RFC2026].
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
This document suggests processes to address the problems identified
in the IETF Problem Statement.
This document decomposes each of the problems described in the
problem statement into a few areas for improvement, categorizes
those areas into longer-term and near-term problems, and suggests
processes to address each area.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Wasserman, Editor Expires December 2003 1
IETF Problem Resolution Process June 2003
Table of Contents
Status of this Memo...............................................1
Abstract..........................................................1
Copyright Notice..................................................1
Table of Contents.................................................2
1 Introduction..............................................3
2 IETF Purpose and Core Values..............................3
2.1 Non-Core Values...........................................5
3 Building on our Success...................................6
4 Problem Decomposition.....................................7
4.1 Decomposition of Mission Problem..........................8
4.2 Decomposition of the Engineering Practices Problem........8
4.3 Decomposition of the Complex Problems Problem.............8
4.4 Decomposition Standards Hierarchy Problem.................9
4.5 Decomposition of the Engagement Problem...................9
4.6 Decomposition of the Management Scaling Problem..........10
4.7 Decomposition of the Working Group Practices Problem.....11
4.8 Decomposition of the Preparedness Problem................12
5 Process Recommendations..................................12
5.1 Near-Term Improvements...................................12
5.1.1 Suggestions to Improve WG Quality Processes..............14
5.1.2 Suggestions to Increase the Use of Tools.................14
5.1.3 Suggestions to Improve Training..........................14
5.1.4 Suggestions to Increase WG Chair Communication...........15
5.1.5 Suggestions to Improve Maintenance of Standards..........15
5.2 Longer-term Improvements.................................15
5.2.1 IETF Improvement Working Group...........................15
5.2.1.2 Working Group Oversight and Management...................16
6 Conclusion...............................................17
7 Security Considerations..................................17
8 Normative References.....................................18
9 Informative References...................................18
10 Acknowledgements.........................................18
11 Editor's Contact Information.............................19
12 Appendix A: Suggested Charter for the Improvement WG....19
Wasserman, Editor Expires December 2003 2
IETF Problem Resolution Process June 2003
1 Introduction
This document suggests processes to address several problems facing
the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) that have been described
in the IETF Problem Statement [IETFPROB].
This document begins with a short discussion of the purpose and
core values of the IETF, and it offers a reminder of the many good
things about the IETF that we donĘt want to lose in the process of
solving our problems.
We then decompose each of the problems described in the problem
statement into a few areas for improvement, and organize those
areas for improvement into two categories:
- Areas that can be addressed in the near-term, via discrete,
minimally disruptive changes or improvements.
- Areas that would require longer-term efforts to address,
such as fundamental changes to our organizational structure
or standards-track processes.
It is suggested that the IETF work on these two classes of
improvements in parallel, so that we can enjoy some near-term
benefits while more fundamental, longer-term improvements are being
carefully considered and executed.
Concrete suggestions are included for how we can begin or continue
work on near-term improvements.
The document then offers recommendations for how to initiate,
organize and manage our longer-term improvement effort.
2 IETF Purpose and Core Values
As we consider how to address the problems with the IETF processes
and organizational structure, it is important to keep in mind the
things about the IETF that we don't want to change -- our sense of
purpose, and the core values that give the IETF its unique
identity.
It is not the role of the Problem Statement Working Group (WG) to
document IETF consensus regarding the purpose and core values of
the IETF -- that role is recommended for a future WG. However, the
words of our past and present leaders may help to set the right
tone for this effort.
The IETF has a rich history and tradition, full of memorable quotes
that capture our spirit and values. Two of the most memorable are:
"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough
consensus and running code." -- Dave Clark
"Be conservative in what you send, liberal in what you accept."
-- Jon Postel
Wasserman, Editor Expires December 2003 3
IETF Problem Resolution Process June 2003
At two IESG plenary meetings in 2002, the chair of the IETF, Harald
Alvestrand, presented his view of the purpose and core values of
the IETF. These presentations may serve as a useful basis for
focusing on our mission and core values.
At the IESG plenary in London in July 2002, it was stated that the
purpose of the IETF is to "produce high quality, relevant, and
timely technical standards for the Internet". Our organizational
structure and processes should be judged by how well they help us
to achieve that mission.
At the following IESG plenary in Atlanta, Georgia in November 2002,
five core values were presented [COREVAL]:
"Cares for the Internet"
As its name implies, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
focuses on Internet-related activities. We care about the
Internet, and our standards work and operational activities are
intended to improve the utility, scalability and availability of
the Internet.
The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF. We want
the Internet to be useful for communities that share our commitment
to openness and fairness. We embrace technical concepts such as
decentralized control, edge-user empowerment and sharing of
resources, because those concepts resonate with the core values of
the IETF community. These concepts have little to do with the
technology that's possible, and much to do with the technology that
we choose to create.
The IETF community also cares about making the Internet model a
viable business proposition. People who choose to offer Internet
products and services that fit with our core values should be able
to do so with maximum benefit and minimum amount of fuss.
The IETF community wants the Internet to succeed because we believe
that the existence of the Internet, and its influence on economics,
communication and education, will help us to build a better human
society.
"Technically Competent"
We pride ourselves on our technical competence, and our processes
are intended to ensure the high technical quality and utility of
our standards and other documents.
"Open Process"
Openness is a core attribute of the IETF. Our standards and other
documents are developed in an open process, which allows us to
achieve wide input and review.
Wasserman, Editor Expires December 2003 4
IETF Problem Resolution Process June 2003
Anyone can participate in defining Internet standards in the IETF.
We do not require corporate membership. We make final decisions on
mailing lists, not at face-to-face meetings, so anyone with
Internet access can contribute. All IETF documents are freely
available, whether they are active working documents or finished
specifications. Individuals as well as working groups may submit
Internet-Drafts for consideration as Internet standards.
"Volunteer Core"
With some honorable exceptions, the IETF community consists of
people who are employed elsewhere, and much of our IETF work is
directly related to the business of our employers. However, many
of us take on additional roles in the IETF, beyond those directly
sponsored by our employers. We participate in the IETF as
individuals, because we want to work for the good of the Internet
community and its inhabitants.
The IETF community is committed to the continued success of the
Internet, not to the continued success of the IETF itself.
IETF is only worthwhile if it can effectively produce high quality,
relevant standards that benefit the Internet.
Openness and individual participation are both parts of an
interlocking structure that is the strength of the IETF. The
openness permits all segments of the Internet community to
participate, without demanding that they meet any qualifying
criteria, such as belonging to a member company. The individual
participation allows us to focus on a wider set of "success
criteria" than the health and well-being of our individual
employers.
Ultimately there is no conflict between the volunteer nature of the
IETF and employer-sponsored participation, because we believe that
the long-term survival and growth of the Internet benefits
ourselves, our societies and our employers.
"Rough Consensus and Running Code"
It is an inherent part of the IETF culture that we base our
decision making on rough consensus of the community, developed
through open discussion.
We also value running code as an indication of specification
quality and completeness, and we require interoperable
implementations for promotion in the standards process.
2.1 Non-Core Values
Understanding our core values will also help us to understand the
long-standing features of the IETF that we can change without
compromising our values or sacrificing our unique identity.
Wasserman, Editor Expires December 2003 5
IETF Problem Resolution Process June 2003
During the November 2002 IESG Plenary, Harald Alvestrand also
presented the following "non-core values" [COREVAL]:
- The division into WGs and Areas
- The three-step standards process
- The ASCII format for RFCs and I-Ds
- The format of IETF meetings
- The structure of WG mailing lists
- The powers of the IESG and IAB
These things were designed to help us achieve our goals in a way
that is consistent with our core values. If they are no longer
effective, we can and should change them.
3 Building on our Success
While focusing on our operational problems, we shouldn't forget
that the IETF is a very successful organization. We are
responsible for some of the most widely used communications
standards in the world, and we have contributed to the creation and
growth of the Internet, one of the greatest technical and social
achievements of our time.
It is important to consider that:
- Good times hide problems;
- Bad times hide successes.
In good times, it is easy to succeed despite operational
inefficiencies, so organizations tend to ignore operational
problems and focus on their success. In bad times, organizations
can become overly critical of their own structure and processes,
blaming the organization for problems that are actually caused by
outside forces.
We are currently suffering difficult times in the IETF and
throughout the communications industry. The IETF should be careful
not to unjustly blame our own organizational structure or processes
for the effects of industry-wide changes such as:
- Economic issues in the global communications industry, which
are causing increased scrutiny regarding expenses and
return-on-investment. These same factors are causing job
changes and uncertainty for many IETF participants.
- The commercialization of the Internet, which has drastically
increased the financial impacts of standardization.
- The convergence of the datacom and telecom sectors of the
communications industry, which has led to an influx of
experienced people into the IETF with a different culture
and industry perspective.
Although it is important to recognize and correct the serious
organizational problems currently facing the IETF, many of these
problems have existed for years, and the IETF has been successful
Wasserman, Editor Expires December 2003 6
IETF Problem Resolution Process June 2003
in spite of these issues. We should not overreact to these issues
with sweeping revolutionary changes to the IETF structure and
processes. Instead, we should focus on developing a culture of
continuous operational improvement through which we can evolve our
organizational structure and processes to make them more scalable
and effective. We should take this opportunity to develop the
mechanisms and processes that we can use to continually monitor and
improve our organizational effectiveness, both in good times and
bad times.
The IETF currently has a large amount of valuable work underway,
and care should be taken not to disrupt or delay that work while we
address our organizational problems.
The IETF is also fortunate to have a large number of extremely
talented and dedicated individuals that serve in formal and
informal leadership roles throughout the organization. We should
be careful not to alienate or disenfranchise our leaders and key
contributors while making organizational or process changes.
4 Problem Decomposition
The problem statement document lists seven root cause problems
currently facing the IETF:
- Participants in the IETF do not share a common understanding
of its mission;
- The IETF does not consistently use effective engineering
practices;
- The IETF has difficulty handling large and/or complex
problems;
- Three stage standards hierarchy not properly utilized;
- The IETF's workload exceeds the number of fully engaged
participants;
- The IETF management structure is not matched to the current
size and complexity of the IETF;
- Working group practices can make issue closure difficult;
and
- IETF participants and leaders are inadequately prepared for
their roles.
Each of these problems can be decomposed into several areas for
improvement, some of which can be addressed in the near-term while
others require longer-term consideration.
It is also important to note that the problem statement lists
problems that have been reported by some members of the IETF.
Although all of these problems are believed to exist, not all of
these problems are present in all parts of the IETF, and some of
these problems may in fact be symptoms of other problems.
Wasserman, Editor Expires December 2003 7
IETF Problem Resolution Process June 2003
4.1 Decomposition of Mission Problem
In order to determine the best organization and processes for the
IETF to fulfill its mission and achieve its goals, we need to reach
a common understanding of the mission and goals of the IETF.
Although it should be possible to understand the mission and goals
of the IETF with no disruption to our current processes, it would
be most valuable as part of a longer-term effort to align the
organization and priorities of the IETF with its mission.
As part of understanding our mission, the IETF will need to
identify our stakeholders and understand how we serve them. We
will need to define the scope of the IETF, so that it is possible
to determine what is in-scope and out-of-scope for the
organization. We will also need to define our goals and
priorities, and learn how to recognize and measure our own progress
and success.
Once we reach consensus on the mission and goals of the IETF, we
should develop educational programs or resources to expose new
participants to these principles, so that they can be quickly
acclimated to the IETF culture.
4.2 Decomposition of the Engineering Practices Problem
The IETF lacks effective engineering practices in four major areas:
1. Failure to clearly define the scope of the work, engineering
trade-offs and acceptance criteria for each project.
2. Lack of effective mechanisms for issue tracking and/or
document change control.
3. Lack of effective processes to ensure quality throughout the
development of IETF work items, such as intermediate
acceptance criteria or formal review processes.
4. Sufficient focus on milestones, and recognition or rewards
for individuals or groups that achieve timely, high quality
execution.
Some of these areas (issue tracking and revision control) would
require that tools are made available to WG chairs and editors, and
that IETF participants (at various levels) are educated in how to
use them.
The other areas concern the formation and process management of
IETF WGs, and would require documentation and adoption of effective
engineering processes within IETF WGs.
4.3 Decomposition of the Complex Problems Problem
The IETF has effective mechanisms for dealing with well-defined
problems of limited scope. These problems are well handled in IETF
WGs, where experts in a given technology can convene and solve the
problems specific to one technology area. However, we are much
Wasserman, Editor Expires December 2003 8
IETF Problem Resolution Process June 2003
less effective at resolving complex problems that affect more than
one IETF WG or area.
Today most communication between WG chairs, especially across area
boundaries, goes through the IESG. Some inter-WG or inter-area
communication problems could be alleviated by greater communication
and coordination directly between the chairs of related WGs. There
are some near-term efforts underway that are intended to increase
communication between WG chairs.
Other complex problems involve higher-level issues, such as unified
architecture or highly-coordinated multi-area efforts. As part of
any IETF reorganization, we should consider management structures
that will allow us to achieve a better focus on architectural and
cross-area issues.
4.4 Decomposition Standards Hierarchy Problem
There are several problems with the IETF's three-step standards
process. These problems can be grouped as follows:
- The three standards-track steps are not used effectively
within the IETF.
- The IETF standards-track is not well understood by the users
of IETF standards.
- The current standards process does not make it easy for
users to locate a set of related documents, such as an
architectural framework and associated protocols.
- The IETF does not have an effective way to maintain IETF
standards.
Major changes to the standards-track should only be considered as
part of a longer-term process that includes an understanding of our
mission and goals.
However, there may be near-term changes that we could make to
better maintain current IETF standards, or to make them more
accessible to users.
[OPEN ISSUE: Is this the correct balance between near-term and
long-term changes to the standards-track? Or could we consider
changes to the three-step process (i.e. to make it a two-step
process) in the near-term?]
4.5 Decomposition of the Engagement Problem
The engagement problem can be decomposed into three primary issues:
- Some WGs do not have sufficient participation, and WG
documents are often produced by very small groups of people,
perhaps with limited expertise in some relevant areas.
- WG documents are not adequately reviewed by people outside
of the originating WG.
Wasserman, Editor Expires December 2003 9
IETF Problem Resolution Process June 2003
- People lose interest in longer-lived WGs, especially when
protocols take a very long time to develop.
When too few people, or people representing too few areas of
expertise, review WG documents this can result in poor quality
output. We need to find ways to increase the effectiveness of
document review at all levels.
Quality processes based entirely on a gatekeeper at the end,
whether that gatekeeper is the IESG or a WG review board, tend to
result in a lower focus on quality by other participants. So, it
is likely that instituting better quality processes throughout
document development, including acceptance criteria and review at
several stages, would increase the focus of WG participants on
document quality.
When the interest of document editors or key contributors starts to
flag, this can cause serious problems for a WG. This most often
happens when WGs are floundering, or when charters are so loose
that WGs lose focus. It also happens when WG documents get delayed
in AD review and/or IESG review for long periods with little
feedback, or when the WG lacks consensus to progress its documents.
Improvements to our processes for chartering, tracking or managing
WGs could help to alleviate many of these problems. Training for
WG chairs in how to manage difficult situations and disruptive
contributors might help, as well.
We also need to better understand what motivates people to become
deeply engaged in the IETF and to remain engaged. It is possible
that expanding the number of formal leadership positions and/or
coming up with more effective ways to acknowledge our top technical
contributors could encourage more people to become, and remain,
deeply engaged in IETF
4.6 Decomposition of the Management Scaling Problem
There are several issues grouped into the concept that the
management structure of the IETF is not well matched to the size
and complexity of the organization. One or two of these problems
might be addressed by near-term solutions, but resolving the
primary problem will require some type of IETF reorganization.
There are four major areas for improvement that are grouped under
this problem:
- The current organization of the IETF does not scale. IESG
members are running too many WGs, reviewing too many
documents, etc. Most IESG members have dozens of direct
reports (WG chairs, directorate members, etc.). In its
current form, there are very few people who could do a good
job as an IESG member, and the huge time commitment and
responsibilities of this role make it very difficult to find
qualified people who are willing to serve on the IESG.
- Current IESG members and other IETF leaders are overloaded.
Wasserman, Editor Expires December 2003 10
IETF Problem Resolution Process June 2003
- The IETF selection processes have tended to select leaders
(IESG, IAB and WG chairs) from the same small pool of
people. The IETF needs to identify and develop additional
leadership, and to delegate real authority and influence to
a larger group.
- The IETF is not effective at identifying and developing new
leaders, and we lack sufficient recognition for the
contributions of IETF participants.
- One or two IESG members can block WG documents indefinitely
(in AD review or IESG review).
Some level of IETF reorganization is needed to improve in the first
two areas. This should be undertaken as part of the longer-term
improvement effort.
In parallel with a longer-term IETF reorganization, however, some
relief could be achieved by modifying IESG internal processes to
remove the potential for one or two IESG members to indefinitely
delay a WG document, either on purpose or due to work overload.
The I-D tracker has already resulted in some improvement in this
area, as it has created visibility regarding how and why a document
is being delayed, but it may not have resolved all of the issues in
this area.
The IESG may also be able to take near-term steps, with community
visibility and agreement, to transfer or delegate more work to WG
chairs, to directorates, to the IAB, or to other to people in
formal or informal leadership positions. If additional leadership
positions are needed for this purpose, the IESG should consider
creating them.
The IESG could also help to expand the leadership pool of the IETF
by actively seeking interested and qualified people for leadership
positions, and by using more open processes for the selection of WG
chairs and other influential positions.
4.7 Decomposition of the Working Group Practices Problem
Although "rough consensus" is considered a core value of the IETF,
consensus-based decision making works best in smaller groups with a
common viewpoint and common goals. Somehow we need to resolve the
apparent conflict between our core values regarding rough
consensus, and our desire to be an effective organization with
several thousand participants.
Although consensus-based decision making has some inherent issues,
there are some problems in the IETF that exacerbate these issues:
- WG chairs may lack the skills and training to deal with
common behavior problems that undermine or prevent
consensus.
- IETF participants are often unaware of how the IETF
decision-making processes are intended to work.
Wasserman, Editor Expires December 2003 11
IETF Problem Resolution Process June 2003
- WG chairs and participants often lack good conflict
resolution skills.
Each of these issues could be addressed through training or other
educational resources.
4.8 Decomposition of the Preparedness Problem
The IETF could benefit from training and educational resources that
increase the preparedness of IETF participants and leaders at all
levels.
The IETF currently has formal training programs for new attendees
and for new working group chairs. However, our current training
programs could use some improvement. There are also several other
groups who could benefit from training or other forms of
development (web tutorials, on-line resources, references,
mentoring, etc.), including continuing attendees, experienced WG
chairs, document editors and IESG members.
There is an effort underway to improve the IETF's internal
education programs, and we recommend that it be continued.
5 Process Recommendations
It is the overall recommendation of this document that we pursue
near-term improvements to resolve IETF problems in parallel with a
longer-term effort to reorganize the IETF and improve our standards
processes. None of the efforts suggested in this document should
be blocked pending the completion and publication of this document.
Ongoing efforts should continue, and new efforts should start as
soon as there is IETF consensus that they are worthwhile.
In our improvement processes, we should attempt to focus our near-
term improvements on areas that are less likely to be substantially
modified by our longer-term efforts, thus minimizing the likelihood
of making our own efforts obsolete.
5.1 Near-Term Improvements
Many of the problems currently facing the IETF can be resolved, or
mitigated, through near-term improvements to our current IETF
organization and processes. Many of these near-term improvements
are completely separable, and there is no reason to aggregate these
efforts into a single IETF WG. It is also unnecessary that all of
these changes be directed by the (already overworked) IESG.
However, in order to prevent the chaos and confusion that could be
caused by trying to change everything at once, it is recommended
that we choose a few high priority areas for improvement and focus
on making improvements in those areas.
In choosing which areas to pursue first, we should consider the
following criteria:
Wasserman, Editor Expires December 2003 12
IETF Problem Resolution Process June 2003
- We should address our most urgent, important problems.
- The areas chosen should be cleanly separable, to allow
multiple improvements to be carried out in parallel with
minimal interference.
- We should maximize the benefit vs. the cost of making the
improvements (i.e. look for low hanging fruit).
- As much as possible, we should focus on improvements that
are less likely to be completely invalidated by a longer-
term reorganization of our management structure. This might
be accomplished by focusing on improvements at the WG and
participant levels, rather than at the IESG/IAB level.
In the sections above, we have identified several areas that could
benefit from near-term improvements, including:
1. Improve WG quality processes and the effectiveness of
document reviews at all levels.
2. Increase the availability and use of issue tracking and
document sharing/revision control software in the IETF.
3. Improve training and resources for IETF leaders and
participants at all levels.
4. Improved communication between WG chairs to identify and
resolve inter-WG and inter-area problems.
5. Consider IETF processes or structures to better maintain
IETF standards.
6. Modify IESG-internal processes to make it impossible for one
or two IESG members to indefinitely delay a document.
7. Modify IESG processes to delegate more responsibility to WG
chairs, to directorates, to the IAB or to people in other
formal or informal leadership positions.
8. Modify the WG chair selection processes to widen the group
of people considered, and consider ways to develop more
leaders for the IETF.
9. Initiate regular AD review of WG milestones and progress.
Applying the criteria outlined above, it would make the most sense
to address areas 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 through immediate short-term
efforts. These are high-priority issues, they are sufficiently
separable to be pursued in parallel, they place minimal additional
burden on the IESG, and they are the least likely to be affected by
an IESG/IAB-level reorganization of the IETF, or by subsequent
changes to the standards-track document process. Specific
recommendations for how to proceed in each of these areas are made
in the following sections.
Wasserman, Editor Expires December 2003 13
IETF Problem Resolution Process June 2003
The IESG should consider internal changes to address areas 6, 7 and
8. Area 9 would require a substantial time commitment from IESG
members, so it is not suggested that near-term improvements be
pursued in this area, unless the IESG believes that the near-term
benefits would justify the effort.
5.1.1 Suggestions to Improve WG Quality Processes
A working group should be formed in the General Area of the IETF to
make improvements to the WG quality processes, including: The WG
(re-)chartering process, the quality processes used by IETF WGs,
and the effectiveness of IETF reviews at all levels. It should be
the goal of this WG to improve the quality and timeliness of WG
work output. This WG would be chartered to resolve the non-tools-
related portions of the Engineering Practices problem (section 4.2)
the WG-related portions of the Engagement Problem (section 4.5),
and the non-training-related portions of the WG Practices problem
(section 4.7).
A great deal of efficiency and synergy can be achieved by adopting
common processes throughout an organization. However, it is a
strength of the IETF that WG chairs are given a great deal of
latitude to choose their own processes and tools, based on the size
and nature of their WGs. So, in general, processes and tools
should be made available to WGs and WG chairs, not forced upon
them.
5.1.2 Suggestions to Increase the Use of Tools
Ideally, the proliferation of tools within the IETF would be
accomplished via grass-roots efforts, organized by participants
within the IETF. One example of this type of effort is the recent
adoption of Jabber for use during IETF meetings.
However, it is also possible that the IESG could designate
functional leaders for specific tools-related efforts and support
those leaders in organizing those efforts. It also might be
helpful for the IETF to set-aside some technical and systems
resources, to make useful tools available to WGs and participants
throughout the IETF.
These efforts should resolve the tools-related portions of the
Engineering Practices problem (section 4.2).
5.1.3 Suggestions to Improve Training
The current WG chairs and newcomer's training efforts should be
continued and expanded as possible to cover training for other
groups. This effort is expected to address the Preparedness
problem (section 4.8), and the training-related portions of the
Mission Problem (section 4.1) and the WG Practices problem (section
4.7).
Wasserman, Editor Expires December 2003 14
IETF Problem Resolution Process June 2003
5.1.4 Suggestions to Increase WG Chair Communication
Some efforts are already underway to allow WG chairs to meet each
other, and to given them opportunities to establish communication
channels. These efforts include WG chair socials and training
sessions for experienced WG chairs. These efforts should be
continued.
The IESG could help to promote chair-to-chair communication by
encouraging direct communication between WG chairs when multi-WG
issues arise.
However, most of the responsibility for establishing effective
chair-to-chair communications channels lies with the individual WG
chairs. We should stop relying on the IESG to resolve inter-WG
issues, and start communicating with each other directly regarding
inter-WG issues.
These efforts may help to alleviate the Complex Problems problem
(section 4.3), although a comprehensive solution to that problem
would probably require some changes to the IETF management
structures.
5.1.5 Suggestions to Improve Maintenance of Standards
The IETF should consider proposals to improve the way that IETF
standards are maintained. It might be possible for the IESG to
document and implement a mechanism to maintain IETF standards
without the need for a WG to enact this change.
This effort should address the maintenance-related portions of the
Standards Hierarchy problem (section 4.4).
5.2 Longer-term Improvements
There are two major areas where we should consider longer-term
efforts to improve the IETF:
- Organizational structure
- IETF standards-track process
These two areas cannot be completely decoupled, as the roles and
responsibilities of the IETF leadership are largely defined in
terms of the standards process, and vice versa. Also, the
standards-track process and the roles of IETF leadership are both
largely defined within the same documents (RFC 2026 and RFC 2418).
Therefore, a new organizational structure and any required changes
to the standards-track process should be determined and enacted by
a single WG, called the IETF Improvement WG (improve). The WG is
encouraged to work on these issues in parallel, where possible.
5.2.1 IETF Improvement Working Group
Wasserman, Editor Expires December 2003 15
IETF Problem Resolution Process June 2003
An IETF Improvement WG should be formed to resolve the Mission
Problem (section 4.1), the Complex Problems problem (section 4.3),
the Standards Hierarchy problem (section 4.4), the Management
Scaling problem (section 4.6), and the longer-term portions of the
Engagement Problem (section 4.5)
This group should be empowered to make changes to the Internet
Standards Process [RFC2026], The IETF WG Guidelines [RFC2418], the
Nominations Committee process [RFC2727] and the charters of the
IESG and IAB [IESG-CH, RFC2850], as needed to correct the problems
with our current organization and standards track processes.
However, the group should not make any changes in these areas until
the goals and potential impacts of those changes have been
carefully analyzed.
5.2.1.1 Working Group Charter and Deliverables
The IETF Improvement WG will focus on three areas:
- Reaching community consensus on the mission, core values,
scope and goals of the IETF.
- Improving the scalability and effectiveness of the IETF's
management structure.
- Improving the utility of the IETF's standards track document
processes.
This WG will follow a two-phase process.
In the first phase, the WG will undertake an effort to reach
community consensus regarding the mission, core values, scope and
goals of the IETF. During this phase, we will also learn how to
recognize and measure the success of the IETF, and we will generate
performance baselines that can be used to evaluate later changes.
In the second phase, the WG will determine what changes, if any,
are required to the organizational structure and standards-track
processes of the IETF to enable us to efficiently and effectively
achieve our mission and meet our goals, while remaining consistent
with our core values. Phase Two tasks will not be started until
the deliverables for Phase One have been completed by the WG and
submitted for publication.
[OPEN ISSUE: Do we really want the Phase Two tasks to wait until
after Phase One is completed? Or can work on these phases proceed
in parallel?]
A proposed charter for the IETF Improvement WG can be found in
Appendix A.
5.2.1.2 Working Group Oversight and Management
The IETF Improvement WG should be managed by the WG chair(s), using
standard IETF practices and procedures, as defined in RFCs 2026 and
2418 [RFC2026, RFC2418]. In keeping with current IETF processes,
Wasserman, Editor Expires December 2003 16
IETF Problem Resolution Process June 2003
the chair(s) of this WG will be chosen and managed by the General
Area Director (AD). It is recommended that the General AD employ a
selection process that allows for community visibility and input,
similar to the process that was used to choose the chairs of the
Problem Statement WG.
To ensure that there is community consensus regarding the charter
of this WG, the charter for the IETF Improvement WG will be
developed within the Problem Statement WG and included in the final
version of this document.
We recommend that the IETF WG and document processes defined in
RFCs 2418 and 2026 [RFC2418, RFC2026] be used for the oversight of
the IETF Improvement WG.
In particular:
- The WG should be formed in the General Area of the IETF,
with the General AD serving as the "responsible AD".
- The documents produced by this WG should be submitted to the
IESG for approval and publication, according to the usual
IETF processes.
- Any process documents that are produced by this group and
approved by the IESG will be reviewed by the ISOC Board of
Trustees, using the processes established for previous IETF
process updates.
- If necessary, any appeals based on the processes or output
of this WG would be handled according to the appeals
procedures defined in RFCs 2418 and 2026.
6 Conclusion
The IETF has problems, and we need to work to solve those problems,
both via focused near-term improvements and via a longer-term
effort to build an IETF organizational structure and processes that
can better handle our current size and complexity.
However, the IETF is also an effective organization with a long
tradition of excellence, and core values that we donĘt want to
compromise in the course of improving our organization and
processes. So, any major changes undertaken in the IETF should
include an articulation of the IETF's mission and our core values,
so that we can ensure that we build an organization that can carry
out our mission in harmony with our core values.
Working together, we can resolve the problems currently facing the
IETF and make the IETF an even more effective, successful and fun
place to work.
7 Security Considerations
This document contains suggestions for processes that the IETF
could use to resolve process-related and organizational problems
with the IETF. Although the structure and quality of the IETF's
Wasserman, Editor Expires December 2003 17
IETF Problem Resolution Process June 2003
processes may have an affect on the quality of the IETF's security-
related work, there are no specific security-related issues raised
in this document.
8 Normative References
[IETFPROB]
E. Davies (ed.), "IETF Problem Statement", draft-ietf-problem-
issue-statement-02.txt, June 2003
[RFC2026]
S. Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
RFC 2026, BCP9, October 1996
[RFC2418]
S. Bradner, "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures",
RFC 2418, BCP 25, September 1998
9 Informative References
[RFC2727]
J. Galvin, "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall
Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees",
RFC 2727, BCP 10, February 2000
[IESG-CH]
H. Alvestrand, "An IESG charter", draft-iesg-charter-03.txt,
April 2003
[RFC2850]
B. Carpenter, Ed. "Charter of the Internet Architecture Board
(IAB)", RFC 2850, BCP 39, May 2000
[COREVAL]
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/02nov/slides/plenary-2/sld4.htm
[DOCTRN]
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/01dec/slides/plenary-3/index.html
10 Acknowledgements
The contents of this document were greatly influenced by members of
the Problem Statement WG editorial team: Avri Doria, Dave Crocker,
Elwyn Davies, Jeanette Hofmann, Melinda Shore, Rob Austein and
Spencer Dawkins.
In addition to the editorial team, the following people have
provided useful feedback on earlier versions of this document:
Harald Alvestrand, Randy Bush, Brian Carpenter, Leslie Daigle,
James Kempf, John Klensin, John Loughney, Keith Moore.
The initial text for the core values section is largely based on
presentations and e-mail messages authored by Harald Alvestrand.
Wasserman, Editor Expires December 2003 18
IETF Problem Resolution Process June 2003
"Good times hide problems; Bad times hide successes" is taken from
a presentation by Tom St. Dennis, the former President and CEO of
Wind River.
11 Editor's Contact Information
Comments or questions regarding this document should be sent to:
Margaret Wasserman
Wind River
10 Tara Blvd., Suite 330 Phone: (603) 897-2067
Nashua, NH 03062 USA Email: mrw@windriver.com
12 Appendix A: Suggested Charter for the Improvement WG
IETF Improvement Working Group (improve)
Chair(s): TBD, as described above.
Area Director(s): TBD, as described above.
Mailing List: TBD
DESCRIPTION:
The IETF Improvement WG is chartered to make improvements to the
management structure and processes of the IETF to address the
fundamental organizational and process problems described in the
IETF Problem Statement (RFC XXXX), according to the process
described in the IETF Problem Resolution Process (RFC XXXX).
The IETF Improvement WG will focus on two areas:
- Improving the scalability and effectiveness of the IETF's
organizational structure.
- Improving the timeliness and utility of the IETF's standards
track document processes.
This WG will follow a two-phase process. Phase two tasks will not
be started until the deliverables for Phase One have been completed
by the WG and submitted for publication.
Phase One: Understanding our Core Values and Mission
In this phase, the WG will articulate and document the core values,
mission, scope and goals of the IETF. We will also learn how to
recognize and measure the success of the IETF, and generate
performance baselines that can be used to assess the success of
later changes.
The deliverables for Phase One include:
Wasserman, Editor Expires December 2003 19
IETF Problem Resolution Process June 2003
- A document describing the core values of the IETF that
should not be compromised as a result of any reorganization
or process changes.
- A document describing the mission, scope and goals of the
IETF.
- A document describing how the IETF can recognize and measure
our own success.
- A set of performance baselines that characterize the recent
performance of the IETF in achieving our mission and meeting
and our goals.
The output of Phase One will provide a framework that can be used
to determine what improvements, if any, we should make to our
organizational structure and standards track processes. It will
also give us a means to understand and measure the success of any
improvements that we do choose to implement.
Phase Two: Organizing to Achieve our Mission and Goals without
Compromising Our Core Values
In this phase, the WG will document whatever improvements are
needed to the IETF organization and processes to allow us to
effectively achieve our mission and goals without compromising our
core values.
In this phase, the WG will:
- Determine how the WG will identify, plan and execute any
necessary improvements;
- Solicit possible improvements from the community, and scour
the problem-statement and solutions mailing lists for
proposed improvements.
- Evaluate, scope and prioritize a set of improvements
designed to increase the effectiveness of the IETF's
organizational structure and standards track processes;
- Implement the improvements (most likely by publishing BCP
RFCs); and
- After a suitable time, reapply the metrics developed in
Phase One to determine if the improvements have been
successful.
Goals and Milestones: TBD
Wasserman, Editor Expires December 2003 20
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 17:44:33 |