Subject: RE: WG Quality Processes WG

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 15:45:38 +0300

Margaret,

> So, do people think we need a WG like this?  If so, does
> it make sense to hold a BOF in Vienna?  I'm happy to do
> some leg work (write up the indicated process in more
> detail, and propose a couple of improvements to consider)
> if people think that this is a reasonable way to proceed.

I think we should have a BOF.

> 
> 5.1.1   Suggestions to Improve WG Quality Processes
> 
>      A working group should be formed in the General Area of the IETF to
>      oversee improvements to the quality processes used in IETF WGs, and
>      to increase the effectiveness of IETF reviews at all levels.  This
>      group should take an experimental, iterative approach to these
>      improvements:
> 
>           - Identify and prioritize a set of promising proposals for
>             improvement.
>           - Figure out what each proposal is trying to improve (in
>             measurable terms) and define a metric to measure 
>             performance in that area.
>           - Determine the current level of performance against the
>             defined metric.
>           - Institute each change in a few representative WGs (on a
>             volunteer basis).
>           - Measure the results to determine if each change was
>             successful.
>           - Make successful changes available IETF-wide, by publishing
>             them in BCP RFCs.
>           - As necessary, train WG chairs and other participants on the
>             how to implement the successful improvements in their WGs.
>           - Repeat as necessary.
> 
>      A great deal of efficiency and synergy can be achieved by adopting
>      common processes and tools throughout an organization.  However, it
>      is a strength of the IETF that WG chairs are given a great deal of
>      latitude to choose their own processes and tools, based on the size
>      and nature of their WGs.  So, in general, processes and tools
>      should be made available to WGs and WG chairs, not forced upon
>      them.

I think the above sound good, but I would not simply keep everything at
the WG level, some should be IETF-wide.

It would be great, for example, if 

 a) WGs that were more than 6 months late on one of their deliverables where 
    sent montly reminders of the fact until either the deliverable was completed 
    or charter was updated.
 b) If the Draft-tracker had a time out, so that any document sitting in a certain  
    state for too long (say 4 months) generated a mail to the mailing list, document
    editor(s)/author(s), sheparding AD about the status.
 c) if the draft-tracker would send mail to a WG, author(s)/editor(s) everytime a
    document changed state

and so forth. 

John

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 15:03:35 +0200

John,

the mechanical things can be done, with just a Small Matter of 
Programming...
the trick is to figure out which ones actually help....

--On mandag, juni 02, 2003 15:45:38 +0300 [email-masked] wrote:

>  a) WGs that were more than 6 months late on one of their deliverables
> where      sent montly reminders of the fact until either the deliverable
> was completed      or charter was updated.

currently we're going for bimonthly reminders to chairs on all overdue 
milestones...
I'm not sure how much that helps in the long run, but it's a start...

>  b) If the Draft-tracker had a time out, so that any document sitting in
> a certain       state for too long (say 4 months) generated a mail to the
> mailing list, document     editor(s)/author(s), sheparding AD about the
> status.

well.... state "RFC Published" and "dead" are quite OK for a document to 
stay in, of course; "AD is watching" is doubtful (could change if/when the 
system is extended to do WG tracking) - otherwise, it would seem to make 
sense.

>  c) if the draft-tracker would send mail to a WG, author(s)/editor(s)
> everytime a     document changed state
>

Already on the wishlist. I don't think the whole WG wants *all* the state 
changes, so the WG chairs could act as a filter.....