Subject: [Tools-implementation] Stepping back to look at where we are, and dedicating time to addressing things we've not been getting to

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 11:17:53 -0500

We have a few years of backlog of significant things that we've wanted to
change or do to work through. This includes:

  - rationalizing the scattered file-stores on ietfa.
  - refactoring the www.ietf.org namespace, possibly defining several new
    namespaces
  - refactoring parts of the various implementations to remove cruft,
    improve testability, and improve our ability to measure how they
    are used
  - separating and formalizing some of the services we've been providing
    into formal applications with well designed APIs. Examples:
     - the id-repository (and probably a separate app for rfcs)
     - search (backed perhaps by elasticsearch) that is fed by, and provides
       results into, all the apps we support.

and of course, there is more, We need to spend some time talking through
where to focus, and identifying other changes that would make what we
provide easier to maintain/manage, and better serve our users.

I assert it's time to take action on these, and Jay agrees that we 
should take
the time to do so sooner rather than later. To that end I propose we 
explicitly
schedule work on a the right part of these between IETF108 and 109, 
recognizing
and setting the expectation that other new functionality will come 
further out.

But before jumping in, I would like to spend some time making sure we 
agree on
what the right parts to focus on are, and that we're headed in the right
direction with them.

In other times, I would suggest a 2 day in-person retreat. But with our
current reality, I propose a series of 4 hour remote workshops (two or 
three).
I envision the first being almost entirely brainstorming, and the later to
refine goals and set plans. To make these effective (especially the first),
we should all be prepared with both a short-list of the things that are
really important to us, and some solid descriptions of proposed things we
might do - the equivalent of a slide or two for a meeting. We should 
consider
bringing other people in as we go along.

We don't have to wait for those sessions to start interactive brainstorming,
of course.

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 12:32:49 -0400

We need to add FTP support to this list because it has an impact on the file store organization.

Russ

> On Jun 24, 2020, at 12:17 PM, Robert Sparks <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I assert it's time to take action on these, and Jay agrees that we should take
> the time to do so sooner rather than later. To that end I propose we explicitly
> schedule work on a the right part of these between IETF108 and 109, recognizing
> and setting the expectation that other new functionality will come further out.
> 
> But before jumping in, I would like to spend some time making sure we agree on
> current reality, I propose a series of 4 hour remote workshops (two or three).
> might do - the equivalent of a slide or two for a meeting. We should consider
> -- 
> Tools-implementation mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-implementation

---

From: Glen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 14:24:51 -0700

> change or do to work through. This includes:

Everything read, understood, agreed.  Truncating for clarity for just my

>   - rationalizing the scattered file-stores on ietfa.

/s/rationalizing/(correcting|reorganizing|cleaning)/

The "rationale" is "detritus from the past".... which IMO is hardly a
rationale.  IMO we (for some value of "we") need to go through everything -
*everything* - on the server data volumes and identify, clean, reorganize,
remap.

>   - refactoring the www.ietf.org namespace, possibly defining several new

+1

>   - refactoring parts of the various implementations to remove cruft,

+1000

> should take the time to do so sooner rather than later.

In our <sarcasm>copious</sarcasm> free time...  :-)

three).

I seriously want to support this effort.  That said, and speaking only for
myself, 4 hours would be... difficult.   One hour would be optimal (again,
just from my own point of view), 2 would be maximal.   4 would be...
negatively nonlinear in productivity.

I could do monthly 2-hour meetings.  I could do weekly 1-hour meetings.
With a morning timeframe and a defined agenda we could dive in immediately
with strong focus.

I therefore wish to express, again speaking only for myself, a strong
preference for more frequent shorter meetings than the opposite.

> We don't have to wait for those sessions to start interactive
brainstorming,

+1.  Working over email brings benefits of speed and ease of
assimilation.   That's also a useful option.

Glen

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 16:32:47 -0500

On 6/24/20 4:24 PM, Glen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:18 AM Robert Sparks <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> Everything read, understood, agreed.  Truncating for clarity for just 
> my pieces:
>
> rationale.  IMO we (for some value of "we") need to go through 
> everything - *everything* - on the server data volumes and identify, 
> clean, reorganize, remap.
See definition (2) at https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/rationalize
>
> >   - refactoring the www.ietf.org <http://www.ietf.org> namespace, 
> possibly defining several new
> >     namespaces
>
> +1
>

So the idea is to explicitly budget time for this. I know we can do this 
for developers. I'm hoping we can get your time explicitly allocated as 
well.

The point is, this isn't going to be "work it into the other stuff". 
It's going to be "reschedule the other stuff".

> I seriously want to support this effort.  That said, and speaking only 
> for myself, 4 hours would be... difficult.   One hour would be optimal 
> (again, just from my own point of view), 2 would be maximal.   4 would 
> be...  negatively nonlinear in productivity.
>
> I could do monthly 2-hour meetings.  I could do weekly 1-hour 
> meetings.  With a morning timeframe and a defined agenda we could dive 
> in immediately with strong focus.
>
I don't think that will get us what we need. Again, the point here is to 
do the best we can to replace what _should_ have been a two day retreat.

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 13:29:21 -0500

Following the link below will give you a page that has an ical link on it.

First stepping-back brainstorming session
Hosted by Robert Sparks

Tuesday, Jul 7, 2020 10:00 am | 2 hours | (UTC-05:00) Central Time (US & 
Canada)
Meeting number: 161 119 8693
Password: aiZgUvWF784
https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m24351c31e2f5ac2233654cacc1d01799

Join by video system
Dial [email-masked]
You can also dial 173.243.2.68 and enter your meeting number.

Join by phone
1-650-479-3208 Call-in toll number (US/Canada)
Access code: 161 119 8693