[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Process for Evaluating Solutions (RE: [Solutions] Document Process Improvement WG)
At 02:27 PM 6/19/2003 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
since I'm having cold feet over scheduling a BOF where the related mailing
list has had close to zero traffic, this was a (pathetic) attempt to
stimulate some discussion here :-)
Well, here's my attempt at generating some discussion...
In the current version of the process document, we have
recommended the creation of a working group to focus on
improving the quality processes used by WGs and the level
of review that documents receive before they are sent
to the IESG...
In the current version, I have offered a high-level
description of a methodology that the WG could us to
prioritize, implement and evaluate change proprosals.
This description will be removed from the next version
of the process document (too solution-oriented), but I
plan to present it as a proposed process during the
COACH BOF (with a bit more detail, perhaps).
Here is the text:
- Identify and prioritize a set of promising proposals for
- 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
- Institute each change in a few representative WGs (on a
- Measure the results to determine if each change was
- 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.
This process is based on widely accepted practices for software
engineering process improvement.
Do people believe that this type of iterative, controlled process is
the right approach to use for IETF WG quality process improvements?
I also included a paragraph on the level of compliance that should
be required from IETF WGs (none):
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.
Do people agree with this? Or should WGs be required to demonstrate
that particular quality steps have been followed before submitting a
document to the IESG?