RE: Specific suggestions to improve San Diego agenda [Was RE: San Diego Agenda issues]

["Vishal Sharma" <v.sharma@ieee.org>]

Adrian,

I am very disappointed to see your responses to my two previous
emails, and take serious issue with the rather dismissive tone
of your responses.

It would be nice to put aside rhetoric and clever remarks to 
focus constructively on the feedback at hand.

The reality is that the feedback I provided is a very
serious attempt to advance the WG's goals and milestones.

Not having an overcrowded agenda is one of the keys to 
advancing WG work.

And, as an active and responsible contributing member of this WG and 
the IETF, I believe it is incumbent to help structure what appears 
to be a needlessly overcrowded CCAMP agenda.

I would have provided this feedback regardless of whether or 
not the you asked for it. I don't think the Chairs have to
ask for feedback from WG members, for us to provide it.

(Note: 
I have certainly done my share in contributing to progressing 
several recent WG items, including TE requirements, inter-region TE, 
P&R, ASON aspects, node ID and hellos,  and the like -- one need only 
go to the ML archives and minutes for that -- 
so it is not as if my input is without basis or without the interests 
of the CCAMP WG in mind.

Of course, it is neither possible nor practical for everyone to
provide inputs on every WG item; nor, in my view, is it beneficial
for someone to attempt to do that.)

To address your specific points:

i) It is never possible to finish all discussions during a WG meeting,
(so, of necessisty, many long discussions are transferred to the ML,
many people are left standing at the mike, etc.)
I think we all understand that, and I do not see anything 
particularly unsual in it at Seoul.

But, if that is an issue, then freeing up 30-odd minutes of the
agenda would seem _even more_ important than I initially thought. It
would ensure that whatever is discussed, is, as far as possible,
done so fully.

ii) Towards that end, I provided _six_ specific suggestions (with
reasoning and justification, based on the criteria specified in
your email), on how the agenda can be made less crowded.

http://ops.ietf.org/lists/ccamp/ccamp.2004/msg00761.html

And, I did not see the WG advance any objections or give any 
reasons why my suggestions are not sensible and reasonable.

I see that you have simply <snipped> them in your reply, I'm
afraid that is not good enough.

If the Chairs, as representatives of the WG body politic, draft the agenda,
and a member seriously provides inputs on it, the Chairs are obligated to
respond, as long as the inputs are not "frivolous", which I 
certainly do not think anyone can point to as being the case here.

iii) The "sense of the room" is neither for my benefit nor
that of the Chairs. 
It is for the benefit of the WG as a whole, to help advance its work.

In that context, if the WG is polled in a rushed way, I re-iterate 
that I don't think that it benefits the WG to do so, and that time can
be saved.

Furthermore, I did not see any communications stating that a sense
of _all_ of these drafts will be taken, only some of them. 
I suggested instead that it would be better for the Chairs to
highlight all these drafts on the list, and take a sense there.

(So, I am not sure what you are driving at by suggesting 
dropping "my" draft from the list. In any case, there is none named 
after me, and two on which I am only a co-contributor.)

iv) If there are milestone items that no one in the WG is commenting on,
despite the WG taking them on,
then it is perhaps time to seriously re-examine them, or encourage
and urge those interested in those items to contribute to them. 

However, I don't see how putting them on the agenda 
achieves the cause of advancing those milestones, except taking 
up time.
People listen to the presentation, and nothing happens thereafter.

v) Finally, the request to have the AD guidelines be published
on the ML, was simply to ensure that the WG learnt of them in 
good time, to allow people to plan their work accordingly.

Thanks,
-Vishal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 5:40 AM
> To: Vishal Sharma (E-mail 2); ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Kireeti Kompella
> Cc: Alex Zinin; Bill Fenner
> Subject: Re: Specific suggestions to improve San Diego agenda [Was RE:
> San Diego Agenda issues]
> 
> 
> > Continuing with my previous email.... per your request
> > below, here are some specific suggestions on how the
> > agenda for San Diego can be improved to remove the
> > pressure on it, thus benefiting the WG as a whole.
> 
> Hmmm. Makes note not to use irony or rhetoric in future emails.
> 
> > I have examined the agenda in the light of the above questions, and
> > have looked at the drafts currently on it.
> 
> Before going any further, be ware that the default position will 
> be that we devote the
> meeting entirely to satisfying our milestones. No other drafts 
> would be examined, and no
> other work done.
> 
> As Fred Baker recently said:
>   ...the charter of a working group is a contract-of-sorts to accomplish
>   something. ... I would like to see working groups held to their
>   chartered work plans, and rechartered if the work-plan changes.
> 
> I take this very seriously, and would like to dilute it only in 
> support of existing WG
> drafts that also need to be progressed. If you look at the agenda 
> you will see
> that it spends most of the time of milestones that have a 
> reasonable chance of
> advancement, but actually touches on all of the milestones.
> 
> I have said before, and will say again and again until I am 
> heard, if you want meeting
> time to be spent on your drafts you MUST give time and effort to 
> advance the WG
> milestones. When we
> have done our work, we have time to play.
> 
> Who in the WG has reviewed the GMPLS MIBs?
> Who has provided constructive suggestions for the development of GTTP.
> 
> And failing that, perhaps the WG would like to open a debate 
> about changing the work-plan.
> But I have heard no discussion of that so I assume that the WG is 
> happy with the current
> milestones.
> 
> > i) First, I do not believe a mention by the Chairs, in less than
> > 30-odd seconds each, of over 15 drafts buys the WG anything.
> >
> > By removing this, the WG saves a full 5 minutes right away.
> [SNIP]
> > -- Also, I noticed in some of your emails that you intended to 
> "take a sense
> > of the room" for some of the drafts on this huge list.
> >
> > I think that _should not_ be done.
> 
> I do not suggest doing it for your benefit. I suggest doing it 
> for the benefit of the
> chairs.
> 
> I will, however, happily remove your draft from this list if that 
> is what you are asking
> me to do.
> 
> > It would be good to hear if the WG believes that the above 
> suggestions do
> > not benefit the WG and/or should not be implemented (and why).
> >
> > Looking forward to seeing a revised agenda.
> 
> Adrian
>