Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-etal-ietf-analysis-00.txt

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 14:59:54 +0200

stretching this thread a bit further.....

one reading of the data is to see what has happened in the past, in order 
to see what's reasonable to expect from the future.

for instance, it is not uncommon for a WG to expect to produce an RFC less 
than 6 months after it starts.

the fact that it almost never happens is an indication that one may want to 
be skeptical about charters that specify it - and ask what the 
extraordinary measures are that the chairs intend to apply to achieve that 
goal.

                        Harald

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 16:00:29 -0700

>to see what's reasonable to expect from the future.

yes.  and another is to consider whether we are satisfied with what is 
happening now.

>the fact that it almost never happens is an indication that one may want 
>to be skeptical about charters that specify it - and ask what the 

Another, very different reaction to the disparity between promise and 
accomplishment is to ensure that working groups meet their milestones.

To carry this to an extreme:  If it is not reasonable for a working group 
to achieve a 6-month (or 12-month, or whatever is being proposed) 
milestone, is the effort ready to be an IETF working group?

This takes the view that it may be exactly proper to target a 6-month 
milestone, and that what is improper is not reaching it.

So, rather than simply challenging the specification of an aggressive 
milestone, we could seek aggressive management that will achieve it.

Perhaps a middle ground is to be aggressive in demanding that the working 
group folks substantiate why anyone should believe the milestones...

d/

----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 16:34:28 -0700

> accomplishment is to ensure that working groups meet their milestones.

and if they don't we reduce their salaries, right?

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 16:50:11 -0700

>and if they don't we reduce their salaries, right?

or perhaps leverage more appropriate to our volunteer circumstances...

for example it is interesting to watch how working group dynamics sometimes 
change when an area director indicates an intent to shut down a 
non-performing effort.

In other words, taking milestones seriously and, therefore, taking 
appropriate action when they are not met, would be interesting to consider.

d/

----------

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:28:49 -0700

> appropriate action when they are not met, would be interesting to

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, ...

randy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:51:19 -0700

>be more difficult to judge, motivate, guide, ...

high quality that misses its market window is very low quality.

In fact, it is useless.

d/

ps.  or we could go down the path of noting that taking longer often does 
not produce higher quality...

----------

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 18:01:01 -0700

> high quality that misses its market window is very low quality.

shame you missed my words.  i did not say time was inconsequential.
i said it was part of quality, but not the most important nor the
hardest to produce in our culture.

the operational part, not the hot air part, of our technology is
becoming reknown for time-to-market crap that is falling over in
production and having massive security problems.

most parts of quality are far harder to measure, to motivate, and
to manage than the milestones.  and talk is cheap.

randy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 22:15:19 -0700

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.  within discussions about project management, it is 
usually recognized that milestones are not merely for measuring progress 
but also for motivating it.

d/

----------