Subject: ISSUE: Goal of problem-statement document

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 15:03:32 +0200

I have (finally!) gotten around to reading through the problem-statement 
document again in detail, and jotting down my various concerns with it.

I think the document is a huge step in a reasonable direction - but I would 
just not be human if I did not have issues with it :-)

I've written up the lot of my current concerns (these may change over 
time), and put them up on the Web at 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/problems-01-comments.html (for those who 
can't wait), but I thought I'd be less brutal to the list than dumping all 
of them in one big batch would be, and raise only a few issues per day....

also, that way it's easier for the tracking system to track the issues 
independent of each other; I definitely don't expect the group to come to 
consensus on my opinion every time!

First issue: Goal statement for the document - I think it's wrong.

Section 1.3 of the document:

   We, in line with many contributors to the
   mailing list, do not believe that the process of problem resolution
   will be helped by continued rework of the root issues in what would
   probably be a vain attempt to achieve any sort of consensus.
   Instead, the general tenor and scope of the problems identified will
   provide a guide in setting up the processes needed to resolve the
   problems and provide input to the resolvers.

ISSUE: The normal understanding of "understanding problems" says that if 
you start fixing problems that don't exist, you will not be happy with the 
result. Going forward with the resolution process of this paragraph thus 
appears to be either exceedingly dangerous or belittling the purpose of the 
document - one rational conclusion to take is that the authors do not 
believe that the problem document will provide significant guidance to the 
solution process, and therefore it does not matter whether it's right or 
wrong.

SUGGESTED RESOLUTION: Change this section to say that the document attempts 
to be a basis for consensus on the root causes. The perceptions of problems 
may be less important in the guidance for resolution, so having multiple 
views on what symptoms the problems cause is probably less problematic.

[Don't worry - there'll be specific input later!]

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:47:01 -0400

> SUGGESTED RESOLUTION: Change this section to say that the
> document attempts to be a basis for consensus on the root
> causes.

One of the things that's of concern here is an interest in
trying to find ways to make progress in the absence of
consensus about each identified problem, the dependency
analysis, and a ranking.  We absolutely do believe that the
document will provide guidance, but it's reasonable to
suspect that it's likely that the only way we'll be able to
reach real consensus on some of it is if we dilute the
discussion to the point it isn't useful.

Melinda

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 16:55:23 +0200

> discussion to the point it isn't useful.

I think we do have consensus on a fair number of points (including the "no 
explicit agreed mission", for instance) - I'd like to probe and try to 
refine some more of these points before declaring that this document is "as 
good as we can make it".

We might quickly come to consensus about what we can't come to consensus on 
:-)

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 14:21:46 -0700

>    We, in line with many contributors to the mailing list, do not
>    believe that the process of problem resolution will be helped
>    by continued rework of the root issues in what would probably
>    be a vain attempt to achieve any sort of consensus.  Instead,
>    the general tenor and scope of the problems identified will
>    provide a guide in setting up the processes needed to resolve
>    the problems and provide input to the resolvers.

i always found this part particularly amusing considering it is
being pushed by the same folk who so strongly push for a classic
software engineering management view of the wg product process.
how can we think we will produce a good result if we do not first
define the needs and requirements well?

randy

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 23:45:08 -0500

Dear Randy,

I'm reading your note as carefully as I can, and see you are
asking that we understand needs and requirements well.
I agree, and want to focus on the definition of "well enough".

Speaking only for myself, I agreed with our text (and may
have suggested it) because I strongly suspected that the
engineering alternative was discussing each problem,
determining its root cause, and agreeing on a prioritized 
list of root causes before we did anything.

I would love to be wrong.

I can't speak for others, but my goal here was to avoid
having to figure out what the IETF consensus was on a
prioritized root cause list before moving on any root cause.
This looked like death to me. I don't believe there are ANY
scope limits on discussions about the relative priority of
root IETF problems, unlike our normal engineering work.

So I thought developing a root cause list (which we have
done, at least at some level) was sufficient, without spending
time trying to determine priorities. I thought this was "good
enough".

I would love to hear other opinions.

Spencer Dawkins

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 13:34:37 +0200

> time trying to determine priorities. I thought this was "good

actually I tend to agree with your sentiment, but not with the text of the 
document as written.

if we can formulate the text as saying "we think there is IETF consensus 
that this statement of root causes is good enough to guide us into the 
process of what to try to fix first", I think it would be better.

What I reacted most strongly to was the statement "a vain attempt to 
achieve any sort of consensus" - we need SOME sort of consensus.

              Harald

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 06:51:10 -0500

Dear Harald,

I understand - I wondered about this when typing my note,
but you said it better in your note than I thought it in my mind!

Thank you,

Spencer

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 6:34 AM
Subject: Re: ISSUE: Goal of problem-statement document

              Harald

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:25:07 -0700

> time trying to determine priorities. I thought this was "good

problem is that the statement in 1.3 does not say that.  the word
priority does not occur in 1.3.  again, it says very clearly

   We, in line with many contributors to the mailing list, do not
   believe that the process of problem resolution will be helped by
   continued rework of the root issues in what would probably be a
   vain attempt to achieve any sort of consensus.

i applaud the later attempts to get at the root issues.  but i
believe the above statement dilutes their importance and could
[unintentionally] be used to dilute attention to the root causes
when we try to find ways to work on the problems.

randy