Re: Steps to make the IntArea WG more productive

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 15:26, Thomas Narten <narten <at> us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Hi Scott.
>
> I'm generally supportive of your suggestions.
>
> Some other thoughts:
>
> Be more selective in what you give agenda time to. The idea that we
> start with a slot and fill it up is the wrong way to do things. We
> should look at what needs f2f time, and exclude everything else. Every
> presentation should be prefaced with "can the community really afford
> to spend time on this ID, or is it really just a distraction to real
> work".

 yes

> What I'd like to see:
>
> - fewer presentations that are also given in other WGs. Int-area
>  presentations should be for work that clearly is best pitched to
>  int-area, after verifying that the work isn't appropriate elsewhere.

I suspect that should depend on _why_ something is being presented in
multiple WGs.  If someone is forum-shopping that's not good and they
should figure out a venue with the various chairs.  If, after
consulting with chairs and ADs, work is seen as worthwhile but it's
not clear where it belongs, even which Area, then having it presented
multiple times feels like a good idea.  Where work belongs can be like
any other issue that isn't getting resolved by mail.  And of course,
in IntArea WG such presentations will get priority based on how
discussion goes on the mailing list.

> - No presentations for new material (i.e., work to take on) without
>  there first being list discussion for the proposal AND there being
>  some minimal level of support on the list that haveing a
>  presentation is appropriate.

Yes, but for items under #3 (proponents are having trouble
explaining), I would be more lenient -- the reason for presentation is
that the group cannot see yet whether there is value or not, so they
might not be supportive ... until after the presentation makes things
clear.

> - limit the number of presentations for non-WG documents. Give an ID
>  one chance (maybe, but see the previous point), but if it's clear
>  the document isn't gonna be adopted by the WG, don't keep giving
>  them an agenda slot. Far too many WGs do that today.

IntArea WG does act as an incubator.  Someone can bring a problem
statement and a solution approach, where the group might agree on the
problem but reject the solution -- in that case I would think they
could come again with revisions to their solution approach.  But the
big difference is adding more use of the mailing list.  The whole
process can and should be done primarily on the list, including
rejecting concepts.

> - The default position for new work should be "no". It can't be enough
>  that people aren't opposed or don't care. There needs to be real
>  benefit to the work being done.

Right.

Thanks ... Scott