Ian Cooper wrote:
> With my chair's hat on I'd like to point out that it's very difficult
> to move the process forward when the group is practically silent (like
> most groups we have short periods of intense activity, but these seem
> to be on minute points). It's very difficult for us to claim "group
> consensus" when only one or two people have made comments of any kind.
> I note that response to my own comments on the interim version of -02
> are limited to about 3 or 4 of the many points I made.. We have
> repeatedly asked for people to bring issues to the attention of the
> group and have so far seen very few. I'd remind folks that there are
> terms in that document that have no definition, just to point at a
> trivial example.
>
> If folks have suggestions on how to make the chairs' job easier, to
> help move the group work along, we'd be more than happy to hear from
> you. I don't see what we can do right now. (We've been working on
> automating an issues list support tool.) I believe I speak for Mark
> as well as myself when I say that the -01 draft, the interim -02, and
> the published -02 RUP requirements drafts were in no state to go to
> group last call. It's very difficult to move on with so little
> obvious support or dissent from the group.
I think the main thing we must do to encourage group activity is give
ourselves deadlines. The pace of progress has been slow -- for example
the requirements document has been in progress for over 1 year. This
slow pace makes it easy for people to lose interest and/or let working
on this working group drop down their priority list.
Assuming people buy this, here is a crack at some deadlines (these are
off the top of my head, so discussion is certainly needed. Is this a
useful idea or is there a better approach? What are the right goals
and dates? Also needed are volunteers -- each goal/subgoal needs both
a date and a person that will drive the process for that goal.)
Goal: Near-final draft of first research update protocol complete for
Dec 2002 IETF meeting
(Rationale: if it isn't, then either the protocol being considered
is too complex or the level of interest in the group is too low to
make fast progress.)
To meet this goal, we need to meet the following sub-goals:
Sub-goal: "Last call" RUP requirements document complete by March
IETF meeting
Note: this will not happen if we wait for a "flurry of
activity" in early March, so...
sub-sub-goal: revised draft (fixing all "internal inconsistency
details" such as definition of terms) posted to group by
mid-January
sub-sub-goal: assemble list of "significant open questions"
from mailing list by late January/early February
sub-sub-goal: resolve these open questions through mailing list
discussions and update document appropriately by end of Feb
sub-sub-goal: authors/editors fix any new "internal consistency
details" that have crept into document during revisions by
early March
Sub-goal: rough draft of one or more proposed protocols + list of
"hard issues" that need discussion by summer IETF meeting
sub-sub-goal: one or more potential approaches identified at
high level by March IETF meeting
...
Sub-goal: near-final draft by December...
-mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:23:00 MST