Re: COACH BoF

["Bernard Aboba" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>]

> My concern is that some of the suggestions introduce more process, at a
> time when I perceive the mood of the IETF to be anti-process.  We can
> certainly assert that front-loading the process will produce better
> documents that will clear the IESG faster, but lots of people won't
> believe that -- witness the same discussion about software engineering.
Some of the "suggestions" would effectively make improvement difficult to 
impossible, so that the cure could be worse than the disease.

At the moment, WG chairs are often motivated to improve quality out of the 
belief that they are more likely to be successful if they do.  So to some 
extent, "best practices" can spread by providing mechanisms by which they 
can be documented -- and providing a venue for WG chairs to discuss what 
they are doing and how well it is working.

There are many ways that such efforts could be encouraged (including having 
issue tracking software be made available to WGs looking to use it), but 
requiring that improvements go through a rigorous experimental 
design/measurement process isn't one of them.

> a "sense of the room" was not taken
I'm not sure that a "sense of the room" in a small BOF is much of a basis 
for making IETF wide decisions.

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail