Subject: Re: BOF Process

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 20:35:34 -0700 (PDT)

I would agree that the BOF process could be streamlined.  If one examines 
the total amount of time required to get a document from an -00 individual 
submission to publication as a WG work item,  some substantial portion of 
that time can be attributed to the WG formation process.  It would be 
worthwhile to reduce that delay. 

In my experience, part of the issue is lack of feedback on what the next 
steps are.  In that respect, transparency would be helpful -- but only if 
it is combined with some degree of formality, so that the objections could 
be noted, and addressed.  At times the BOF formation process has been 
compared with the game of "find me a rock" -- unless the type of rock is 
clearly described, a lot of trips to the quarry can be needed in order to 
come up with the right one. 

Speaking from experience, we should not over-estimate the role that IAB 
members play in the BOF process.  Yes, they do write BOF reports, but in 
the end, it is the IESG that makes the decision and is accountable for 
the process of WG formation.

As for "conflict of interest", my experience is that the IESG/IAB is quite 
conscientious about such things.  Recusal is quite common.  However, it's 
important not to confuse disagreement with "conflict of interest".  An 
IESG/IAB member can disagree without financial interest playing a 
role.  

-----------------
Lakshminath said:

The process issues I am raising are fixable. People need to be aware of 
the issues and communicate better. We need to think of ways to force 
transparency and remove the bad apples from positions of power as soon as 
possible: If a lot of people feel that an AD or an IAB member is not 
following process, biased or otherwise incompetent, well then, as painful 
as it might be, we need to put the recall process to test. There is no 
need to wait until the regular nomcom cycle.

Next, I know a number of people at the IETF who care about our principles, 
are passionate about following them and who argue for them, sometimes at 
the cost of their careers at their places of employment. Those are the 
"IETF."

Finally, whereas I may have examples where things could be better or where 
I was unable to get some things done at the IETF, I am raising these 
issues independent of any one particular issue or problem. What I am 
learning in the process is that some look at all of this from an 
"idealistic" viewpoint and think that everything is fine and a few who 
think that drastic measures are needed. I am of the view point that we 
need more transparency and that we need to introduce more checks and 
balances on ADs and IAB members in how they exercise their power. Many of 
us will be at the losing end of arguments and that may have serious 
implications in the real world; but, as long as the process is fair and 
open, and the rules are followed, we should all be able to deal with being 
at the losing end of arguments.

I am optimistic that we can make the process fair and open.

best regards,
Lakshminath

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 18:40:00 +0200

Bernard,
> steps are. 

Would you then argue for longer lived working groups that take on more 
general charters, such as DHC?

Eliot

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 08:10:29 +0200

On 2007-05-26 05:35, Bernard Aboba wrote:
...
> In my experience, part of the issue is lack of feedback on what the next 

Pragmatically, I suggest helping to improve draft-narten-successful-bof

    Brian

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 10:46:27 -0500

From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>

> Pragmatically, I suggest helping to improve draft-narten-successful-bof

Although the BOF process is still a relatively dark corner of the IETF, the 
ambient lighting has been increasing for a while. I've seen three changes in 
the past couple of years that are worth mentioning:

- As Brian points out, Thomas Narten's draft-narten-successful-bof is a lot 
more guidance than the community has had previously on "how to bring new 
work into the IETF", and this draft also became the basis of a 
Sunday-afternoon tutorial offered at the last two IETFs.

- As recently as last year, the IAB and IESG were discussing BOFs and BOF 
coverage on Monday morning of each IETF meeting week. This has switched to a 
pre-IETF telechat on the BOFs that have been requested, a couple of months 
prior to the IETF, allowing better preparation and better evaluation now.

- One point of controversy, probably 18 months ago, was whether to announce 
UNSUCCESSFUL BOF requests. Current practice is to make all BOF requests 
visible while they are under consideration, at 
http://www3.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki. As Bernard points out, feedback on 
next steps could be improved, but this is much more visible to the community 
than it's been in the last 10 years (I don't go back further than that).

My understanding was that draft-narten-successful-bof was a first step to 
describe what the current practice was, before making changes to the 
process, and anyone who cares about this topic should be familiar with this 
draft before making suggestions.

I should also remember to thank Leslie and Brian, and the IAB and IESG 
members who made these changes.

Spencer