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

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 09:27:46 -0600

That's a really good question.  I think it could be applied RAI wide, in
which case it becomes more of a tool administered by the ADs.  My focus
had been on the SIP/SIPPING WGs, since those are the ones that have the
largest volume.  And, I thought the work in the other groups was more
narrowly focused to allow the WG chairs to effectively manage the work.
However, applying this directorate approach area wide might help with
getting some earlier, focused attention to work in some of the other
WGs.  My only concern would be to make sure that we're not adding
another layer or any additional delays by introducing this model.  

If it does make sense to use this approach area wide, it might really
make sense to split the groups which brings us back to where Dean
started this thread and where James Polk is back to suggested the same
thing as well under the Author Incentive thread. I think what dividing
the WGs does is to add more "sticks" to the process, provided of course,
that the chairs aren't all the same.   This may be the most effective
approach for the next couple of years. 

Mary.

-----Original Message-----
From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 12:39 AM
To: Barnes, Mary [RICH2:B601:EXCH]; Vijay K. Gurbani
Cc: Allison Mankin; sipping; Jon Peterson; Dean Willis
Subject: Re: Directorate - Re: [Sipping] Re: [Sip] Thoughts on the
Principleof DividingandConquering

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?

On 3/1/06 11:43 AM, "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 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

_______________________________________________
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