Subject: RE: Directorate - Re: [Sipping] Re: [Sip] Thoughts on the Principleof DividingandConquering

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 13:43:18 -0600

When I mentioned a directorate what I had in mind was a pool of folks
that really perform all the roles mentioned, depending upon where the
draft is and the problems folks find.  

My view of this model may be slightly different than others based on my
gen-art experiences.  In that model there is a pool of reviewers that
are assigned documents at IETF LC.  These individuals really perform all
those roles, albeit at a different level as they're not experts on the
protcols, but rather generalists.  So, I don't waste bandwidth, the
gen-art model is described fairly well at:
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/review-guidelines.html

Within the context of SIP/SIPPING, I think the directorate role would
primarily intended to challenge and ensure the integrity of the
technical content. But, I do think there may be times when a "cleaner"
is necessary.  I think one of the problems with some work progressing
(and I don't think it's unique to SIP/SIPPING) is that once work reaches
a certain stage, authors/editors are loathe to do any major rewrite
(we're all guilty of that).  But, I know in the cases where I've done
total rewrites, the final output was dramatically improved.  I think we
often end up churning on the same issues for months (and sometimes even
years).  Usually, there is reasonable WG feedback, but I think it's rare
that someone steps back and says they think something should really take
a few steps back or at a minimum needs to be presented differently to
ensure clarity.  

What I had in mind was that if one of the technical experts (that hasn't
been so directly involved in the work) reviews the document earlier -
perhaps the WG -00 version, then some fundamental problems might get
caught earlier and force the resolution, rather than carrying forward
the same issues.   I think what happens often times is that folks very
conscientiously follow newer work at the individual stage, but tend not
to spend the cycles once it reaches WG stage as they're familiar with
it.  I think many documents go through WGLC with very few reviews,
either meaning folks didn't review it or that's it's near perfect. 

So, what I'm suggesting be borrowed from the gen-art model is the random
assignment of a reviewer from a pool (of course, not assigning an author
their own doc) and having that person (or persons) be the reviewer until
the doc leaves the WG.  And, perhaps even having a similar tool as
gen-art to track the reviews, etc.

I agree that it could be problematic if the directorate was made up
entirely of contributors.  There are a few folks that I can think of
that aren't contributors, but do have a good enough grasp of SIP that
they could perhaps serve on the directorate, unfortunately, these folks
are part of gen-art (and having them in this role could pollute the
gen-art model).  

Another thought would be to recruit from our companies folks that aren't
necessarily involved in writing the specs or even regularly attending
the meetings, but folks that must implement the drafts.  I know I have
great difficulty in getting folks to attend meetings or participate
regularly on the lists, but I could possibly sell the idea to management
of getting these folks to thoroughly review a draft or two each month.
The problem the average developer has is that it is extremely difficult
to keep up with everything underway in the WG, but this would give them
a chance to "check-in" without adding too much of a burden. And, I think
feedback from developers would be really useful.  

Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: Vijay K. Gurbani [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 1:04 PM
To: Cullen Jennings
Cc: Allison Mankin; sipping; Jon Peterson; Dean Willis
Subject: Re: Directorate - Re: [Sipping] Re: [Sip] Thoughts on the
Principleof DividingandConquering

Cullen Jennings wrote:
> I think this thread has had proposal for a few types of Directorates.
> 
> Coaches/Helpers: These people would work with authors and help get
> them specific drafts finished.
> 
> Cleaners: If the directorate does not like your idea, we toss it out
> and don't making it a WG item.
> 
> It's not at all clear to me that we would want to have a directorate
> that was an additional stage of process that you needed to get to
> approve a draft. (Never mind if this would even be allowed)

Clearly, the "Cleaner" directorate is out of question (I can
imagine conversations like "The SIP Ministry of Prevention of
Interoperability Problems and Promotion of Their Own Ideas do
not like your work.  Your draft is now dead!") ;-)

When I had suggested the use of a SIP directorate, I had in mind
one more along the line of Coaches/Helpers, but something more.
And that is the fact that we ought to put people in the directorate
that know SIP both at the protocol layer as well as at the
architectural level.

When a contributor writes a draft on a new whiz-bang idea, their
aim is to solve the particular problem that is itching them.
Often times, they are not concerned with the overall integrity
of the protocol or the ramifications it may have architecting
SIP systems.

It is fruitful to have access to these people at an early time
in the life of an I-D.  Otherwise, time is wasted debating merits
of doing one thing over another.

Now, if it is the case that the set of contributors == set of
participants in the SIP directorate, then we are at an impasse
that I am not sure how to solve.

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani  vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies, Inc.
2701 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9F-546, Lisle, Illinois 60532 (USA)

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:38:49 -0800

I think I am getting a better view of what you are thinking. And were you
thinking one directorate that worked RAI wide issues or narrow to just
SIPISH stuff?

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 09:42:17 -0600

> thinking one directorate that worked RAI wide issues or narrow to just

Of the 15 WGs in RAI, by my count 5 are directly impacted by how
SIP evolves -- about 1/3 of the area.  Is that a good enough bar
for an area-wide directorate?  That's a decision the ADs will have
to make, but to me something akin to a SIP*-related directorate
is more appropriate.

The other WGs in RAI do not seem to be -- at least to me -- as
overloaded as SIP/SIPPING.  There is, obviously, a body of work
going on in related WGs such as xcon, simple, and speermint that
uses SIP; but other WGs like sigtran and megaco are not directly
impacted by the protocol.  Thus, I would choose the directorate to
be SIP*-wide.

Thanks,

- vijay