changing the subject (was [Solutions] Document Process Improvement WG)

[<john.loughney@nokia.com>]

Hi all,

> 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 :-)

Good point - we'd be very interested in getting feedback on the agenda
and proposed description?  Is there something we should be covering here
or something we should not be covering?

thanks,
John

PS - I have had some comments on it, that I need to add.

BOF NAME & ACRONYM: Comprehensive apprOACH to quality (COACH)
AREA:               General
BOF CHAIR(S):       Bernard Aboba, John Loughney

MAILING LIST:
List:               ietf-quality@bogus.com
Subscribe:          majordomo@psg.com
Body:               subscribe ietf-quality@bogus.com
Archive:            http://psg.com/lists/ietf-quality

FULL DESCRIPTION:

This BOF will focus on proposals for quality improvement within the IETF process, and
determine if there is enough substance to work on a framework within which these
proposals are evaluated. The outcome of the BOF will be to determine how best to 
proceed with these issues in the IETF.

There are concerns about the quality and timeliness of IETF output. These problems 
are enumerated in the IETF Problem Statement, currently under development in the Problem 
Statement Working Group. The current IETF Problem Resolution Process document suggests 
that a Working Group be formed to improve the quality processes, including review 
processes, used by IETF Working Groups.

The goals of this BOF will be to determine a basic approach that the IETF could take 
to WG process improvement, examine some of the documented proposal for process 
improvement, and determine if there is enough interest and content to warrant the creation 
of a WG to improve the quality processes used by Working Groups.

One goal is to write one or more documents on aspects of a WG quality plan.  For example, 
a document on tracking tools - what's available, and more importantly, how to use them 
to improve quality.  Another document on reviews - how they might be conducted, 
the rules for reviewing, choosing reviewers, etc.  The benefit of this is that it while 
it requires Working Groups to think about the issue, it doesn't require that all working 
groups come up with the same plan.

READING LIST:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem-issue-statement-01.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem-process-00.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-overload-00.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-solution-sirs-00.txt

AGENDA:

Agenda Bashing (5 minutes)

Introduction (10 minutes)
	Existing RFC editorial guidelines - Scott Bradner
	

Quality: Overview and Framework (15 minutes)
  IETF  Problem Resolution Processes - Margaret Wasserman
  draft-ietf-problem-process-00.txt

Starting New Work (20 minutes)

  The BOF Process: A Critique
  Leslie Daigle

  IESG Overload and Quality of WGs - John Klensin
  draft-klensin-overload-00.txt

The WG Process (10 minutes)

  Decision points/milestones in the WG process - Margaret Wasserman
  TBA

The Review Process (20 minutes)

  Careful Additional Review of Documents (CARD) - Brian Carpenter
  draft-carpenter-solution-sirs-00.txt

  The Review Process in Action: The DCCP WG - Aaron Falk/Allison Mankin

Issue tracking tools (10 minutes)

  Requirements for IETF Tracking Tools
  TBA

Summary and Discussion (20 minutes)