Re: COACH BoF

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <3F12CDC9.7050706@verisignlabs.com>, Leslie Daigle writes:
>
>COACH -- Comprehensive apprOACH to quality 
>
>Several presentations discussing things that could be done to 
>improve quality of IETF output.  The presentations ranged from
>proposals for within-WG process improvements (Bernard Aboba & John Loughney's
>"quality plan document"; Margaret Wasserman's "wg process" document,
>Aaron Falk & Allison Mankin's presentation of the DCCP interim
>review process),  to proposals/theories about new work creation (my 
>"pre-BoF" thought; John Klensin's fixed cap on number of WGs); to 
>changes in IETF process (Brian Carpenter's "SIRs" review panel
>proposal; Margaret Wasserman's "process" document from the PROBLEM
>working group).
>
>Most proposals seemed to get good interactive comments from
>people in the room; relatively few "we can't do that; we've never
>done that before" statements.  At the same time, no one seemed to
>be claiming their proposal  was "it" -- the only thing needed, or
>completely finished.
>
>What isn't clear to me is: where from here.  There seemed to be
>a theory that this might be a working group, but it's not clear
>to me that there is on-going working group material here (rather
>than a good venue for discussing some point solution ideas).

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.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)