Re: WG Deluge & Focus

[Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

doug@xxxxxxxxx directly replied on 02/19/2002 09:26:19 PM:
> >   Ive seen several thread get 10+ layers deep with several concurrent
> > sub-threads/digressions going on.  I for one find the volume
> > overwhelming and the lack of focus on the threads issue(s) a deterrent
> > to engaging (at least until things get a bit quieter on the list).
> 
> Bruce, have you followed any other WG. We are *mild* compared
> to them.

The point is that _we_ tend to digress on deep threads and diverge from concensus.  Im just asking that ALL posters try to do some self reflection and keep the threads focused so _we_ can make forward progress.  Let the other groups flounder if they wish...

I suspect that part of the reason we only have a handful of active posters is that many folks are overwhelmed by the volume in spurts (near IETFs) and by the digressions ("This thread stared to cover Alarms and digressed into an OS discussion before just stopping...").  

> >   In order to both reengage folks (besides myself even) and to make
> > some more visible and constructive progress on CAP, Id like to suggest
> > that we A) ... B) try to resolve 1 issue before turning our focus onto
> > others.
> 
> The problem is that it is taking over a week per issue and
> there were over 30 issues. We needed to speed it up.

Part of the root of this problem is our tendency to digress instead of staying on topic.  Im just as guilty of this as several others here are so Ill take some of the heat for that (but not for the recent flood).  

I know we all enjoy a good and lively discussion (anyone who doubts this should watch the IETF hallway talks) but speed going nowhere on many topics does not improve our chances of getting done faster.

Should we ask the WGs Co-chairs to be ref's in keeping us focused in threads?  Is there another way to achieve this so we do make forward progress?  I think the starting point should be first the poster themselves followed by the 'creator' of the thread followed by the WG and the co-chairs but thats just my own feelings on it.

> We have eliminated many of the issues - most of the work needed
> was to integrate the debates into text. 

Concensus is goodness (although Ive yet to see much of that in postings)!  We may not make a WG Last Call this time around but resolving issues is good progress.  If it would help, Ill buy some Cokes for the editors to give them some extra caffine at the next IETF...

> Some of the things that were in CAP were NOT compatible
> with BEEP. 

This is bad and MUST be avoided.  Im glad you have the time to notice this before it continues further.  When I catch up to the backlog Ill try to make sure it does not happen anywhere in CAP.  In the mean time its good that it is caught now and not after we've done lots more work that may become cruft.

Compatability issues MUST be preserved and to do any other work on stuff that breaks it is just a waste of time and an excercise in idiocy.  A builder does not put in the flooring and wall board if the house foundation and framing needs to be redone... (At least the good ones dont!)

Now lets refocus our threads/efforts on the issues they were meant to be on and resolve all the issues that we can before the next meeting...

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...