Hi Benno -
On 7/7/2022 3:12 PM, Benno Overeinder wrote:
Hi Mike,
On 07/07/2022 20:26, Michael StJohns wrote:
On 7/7/2022 12:28 PM, Benno Overeinder wrote:
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.
You are correct, we did have one survey/poll. In my memory they were
two different surveys, but it was one survey for prioritising existing
work and open questions about adopting new work. The results were
presented in the DNSOP WG chairs slides of the IETF 112 meeting. The
new work suggested by the WG was dnssec-bootstrapping and
dnssec-automation.
I was pretty sure I hadn't seen the result of the survey on the list and
- to be blunt - it needed to be there if for no other reason than to
memorialize the information. As the IETF has noted time and again,
decisions are made on the mailing list, not in working group meetings.
Meeting presentations are generally ephemera (even more so than IDs),
and that limits at least my reliance on them.
All that said, the WG chairs get to decide which documents are WG
documents (through the determination of consensus), but only within the
constraints of the model the WG has agreed upon (RFC 7221 section 2.2
basically). Up to this point, adoption has been by discussion on the
mailing list. A change to that should probably be discussed before
being implemented.
However, going back to the original issue: There was a disconnect that
could have been avoided here. The mail message implied/said that the
poll was for adoption. The poll header said something different - that
it was to select the first 2-3 to be sent out for call for adoption.
The actual poll question asked which documents to adopt now. I read
the mail message, and jumped into the poll without reading the header
and read the poll question only. It took me this last message
re-reading things to understand that probably what you thought Tim said
is not what I heard. I have this suspicion reading Ted and Brian's
messages that they got to the same place as I did.
E.g. The poll question should have read: "For the following documents,
when should DNSOP send out Calls for Adoption?" with "Now" and "Not Yet,
if ever" and "Never" rather than "Adopt Now" etc. Alternately, using
the same question you used in the prior survey (Important, Not
Important, Indifferent) might have given you the info you needed to
prioritize.
Tim should have probably followed his earlier inclination and just sent
out the six adoption calls.
Later, Mike
As the notes indicate, we considered starting a poll but ended up not
doing so for IETF 113. Thanks for correcting.
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
