Hi Benno -
On 7/7/2022 12:28 PM, Benno Overeinder wrote:
Hi Mike,
On 07/07/2022 17:21, Michael StJohns wrote:
On 7/7/2022 11:10 AM, Benno Overeinder wrote:
It helps us and the WG itself to prioritise WG activities and start
a regular WG call for adoption of a number of documents. We will
share the results of the poll with the WG and how to make an initial
selection of documents that will be included in the WG call for
adoption process. We currently have 6 drafts for which the authors
have asked WG adoption, but that is too much new work for the WG to
work on.
Any feedback on improving the process to prioritise work in the WG
is welcome.
All of that is a good and just reason to send out calls for adoption.
But the point of the previous messages was that the poll was not the
way to do that. Basically, making a poll choice without providing
context and an opportunity for discussion a) lacks transparency (in
that when the chairs make a decision, the WG has no basis on which to
evaluate that decision), b) lacks nuance (in that the choices
provided do not cover some shadings of what to do - e.g., not ready
for consideration), c) lacks WG participation (a discussion about a
document gets us to a better result than blind voting).
I see the points you are making but as we mentioned we will be sharing
and discussing the results of the poll, so for transparency of the
decision making process and WG participation in this it will be on the
WG mailing list. For your concerns wrt. the nuance there should be
room during this mailing list discussion.
If we're going to be discussing the individual documents, then exactly
what use is the poll? Sending out a note that lists the 6 documents and
with a request to respond in line with comments on each with respect to
adoption and other comments would require exactly the same amount of
work from the responders, would provide others with an impetus to also
respond, and would provide the chairs with a wealth more information.
If additional discussion on a particular document were necessary, a new
thread could be created for that document. But, IANADC... :-)
If I read your concerns correctly, instead of 6 WG call for adoptions
in a short period (or in one go) we will have a phased WG call for
adoptions in the next month with 3 candidates and when the WG
completes current existing work, another batch of 2, 3 or 4 WG calls
for adoption will be issued. And an outcome of the call for adoption
can be a yes/no/not ready for consideration/..., as usual.
See above.
Conducting a survey (2 times now) has worked well over the past 1.5
years to prioritise finishing existing work and starting new work.
Two years ago we (as a WG) discussed how to manage the workload of the
WG and running a poll seemed to be one of the mechanisms to help with
that.
Using the search terms "poll" and "survey" individually via the DNSOP
archive web page, I found the last July email
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/bXDwmPhft5BXFndKs5xI3FjOewE/)
which was about prioritization and a bunch of doodle polls about interim
WG scheduling. I didn't find any about new work. For the
prioritization google thing, I can't actually read the text of the
google doc via that link, and I'm not sure what to search for in the
mail archive to find the resultant document if indeed it was published
to the list. Searching the archives is *very* clumsy. So, depending
only on my memory, I seem to remember that other poll was only about
dealing with accepted work that hadn't progressed (i.e., kill or
keep). Scanning forward from the publication date of that poll, I
can't see anyplace where the result of that poll was actually published
to the list. The chair's meeting notes of 6 Aug 2021, 20 Aug 2021 and 3
Sept 2021 don't reference the poll. The 19 Nov 2021 notes indicate that
another poll was being considered for work prioritization, but I can't
find where it was sent, if at all.
So, could you send me the link to the DNSOP emails where the results of
the previous two surveys were published please? And for that matter
where the second prioritization poll was sent out.
Thanks - Mike
The fact that the chairs did not respond to the original messages is
also a bit problematic.
Apologies for not responding to the original messages, but was in no
way intended to ignore them.
Regards,
-- Benno
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
