File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 10 February, 2016 Slide 1 Margaret Wasserman WG Chairs Training.

File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: May 3, 2023 Slide 1

Margaret Wassermanmrw@windriver.com

WG Chairs Training

WG Chairs Training Roles and responsibilitiesThe Working Group processConsensus and problem solving Administrivia

WG Leadership RolesChair – WG managementDocument editor – reflect WG consensus in specificationResponsible AD – Area management

AD & WG Chair PowersChair can replace document editors● Should have the backing of ADAD can strongly recommend replacement of document editorAD can replace chairAD can close down the WG

WG Chair ResponsibilitiesKeep the processes open and fairNegotiate charter and charter updates with ADsKeep milestones up-to-dateSchedule meetings and set agendasChoose/replace document editorsJudge WG consensusSelect and manage the editors and the WG to produce high quality, relevant output● Meets published document format/standards (ID-nits)● High technical quality and relevance/usefulness

Editor ResponsibilitiesProduce a document that meets WG consensusRaise issues for discussion and resolution at meetings or on the list● If contention, WG chair judges consensusTrack document issues and resolutions● Some type of issue tracking software or

tools are recommended, but not required

WG Chair TasksSchedule meetings and plan agendasRun meetings, produce minutes, return blue sheets● Make sure that minute-taker is assignedMaintain WG milestonesManage/moderate the WG mailing listKeep track of WG work item status and make it clear to the WG● Issue WG last calls● Submit documents to the IESG when appropriateMake sure that document processes are followedManage up – track documents with IESG, etc.

Required ReadingRFC 2026: Internet Standards Process● Explains document processes, appeals

process, etc.RFC 2418: IETF WG Guidelines and Procedures● Defines WG chair role, rules for conducting

WG buisness, etc.

WG Chairs Training Roles and responsibilitiesThe Working Group process Consensus and problem solvingAdministrivia

Understanding the WG ProcessWhy do we need to reach common understanding of our processes?● The process will work more efficiently● The process can be applied more consistently

Leads to more actual and perceived fairness● WG members can provide useful input to

complex process decisions, and help keep the chairs honest :-)

● We can better separate process discussions and technical discussions

Goals of the WG ProcessFollow the spirit of the IETF process, not just the letter● Openness and fairness

All issues/changes to WG work items should be discussed openly in the WG

● Focus on producing output that is both technically sound and useful Raise the bar for acceptance as a WG work item,

and for sending work to the IESG Identifying problems earlier is less painful and more

efficient

Steps in the WG ProcessInitial SubmissionAuthor RefinementWG AcceptanceEditor SelectionWG RefinementWG Last Call

Steps in the WG ProcessInitial Submission● Original idea or issue is submitted to the WG

May be done via mailing list or at a meeting Complex ideas/issues should be submitted as Internet-

Drafts● Chairs will reject submissions that don’t fit within

the WG charter, in our judgment May refer submission to more appropriate groups or areas

● Chairs should reject submissions that aren't relevant or don't meet minimal quality requirements

Steps in the WG ProcessAuthor Refinement● Idea is more fully documented or refined

based on feedback May be done by the person who originally

submitted the idea/issue, or by others May be done by individual, ad hoc group or more

formal design team● Change control lies with author(s) during

this phase

Steps in the WG ProcessWG Acceptance● For a document to become a WG work item,

it must: Fit within the WG charter (in the opinion of the

chairs) Have significant support from the working group,

including:– People with expertise in all applicable areas who are

willing to invest time to review the document, provide feedback, etc.

– Probable (or current) implementors, if applicable

Steps in the WG ProcessWG Acceptance● For a document to become a WG work

item, it must: Be accepted as a work item by a rough

consensus of the WG– Should reflect WG belief that the document is taking the

correct approach and would be a good starting place for a WG product

Have corresponding goals/milestones in the charter – Approved by the Area Directors

Steps in the WG ProcessEditor Selection● Editor(s) will be selected by the WG chairs

Usually one or more of the original authors Must be willing to set aside personal technical

agendas and change the document based solely on WG consensus

Must have the time and interest to drive the work to completion in a timely manner

Steps in the WG ProcessWG Refinement● Document updated based on WG consensus

All technical issues and proposed changes MUST be openly discussed on the list and/or in meetings

All changes must be proposed to the mailing list

– Complex changes should be proposed in separate IDs The WG has change control during this phase

– Changes are only made based on WG consensus– During this phase, silence will indicate consent

Steps in the WG ProcessWG Last Call● Final check that the WG has rough

consensus to advance the document to the IESG WG consensus indicates that the WG believes

that this document is both technically sound and useful, and ready to go to the IESG

Steps in the WG ProcessWG Last Call● The document must be reviewed and

actively supported by a significant number of people, including experts in all applicable areas, or it will not be sent to the IESG Why would we want to waste IESG time on a

document that we can’t be bothered to review ourselves?

● Silence does NOT indicate consent during this phase

Rough Consensus

"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and

running code." -- Dave Clark

ConsensusClearly dominant agreementDoes not have to be unanimousChair(s) judge consensusAlternatives to "voting"

humm show of hands (sorta like voting but ...)

Even harder on a mailing list ask for "humm" & provide list of hummers at end?

May have to discard parts to get consensus on rest

Structured Discussion SlidesRecommend use of slides for structured discussion and consensus calls

Openness includes accessibility to non-native English speakers, hearing-impaired people, etc.Written consensus questions result in higher quality and more credible responses

Consideration for ESL participants

(in IETF Meetings)Rule of Thumb - Use simple EnglishRepeat the question and do a quick summary before moving on to the next topicPrepare important questions before hand and flash them on the screen before taking consensusBe patient … they take some time to articulate● A translator would help but not encouraged

(in Mailing Lists)Rule of Thumb : Command of English != Technical competencyTolerate broken English but never try to guess what they say if it is not obviousGet to know some friends who is multilingual and ask them to help to bridge● Never ignore their ideas in the process of

building consensusIf they are writing I-Ds, encourage a co-author who has better command of English

(Culture differences)Rule of Thumb: Listen, Ask and ListenDon’t believe in what you think you listen● Different culture have different choice of wordsSome people considered IETF environment very hostile or aggressive● Encourage them to read the Taos of IETFNot all likes to voice their opinion in public● Speak to them in private after meeting or over

emails when building rough consensus

WG VenuesEmail● International participation● Inefficient but extensive discussionFace-to-face meetings● At IETF, other times (interim meetings)● Must be well advertised four weeks ahead

of time● Can not make "final" decisions● Verify all consensus points via email

Appeal ProcessProcess &/or technical appeal to WG chairProcess &/or technical appeal to ADProcess &/or technical appeal to IESG● via email to IESG listProcess &/or technical appeal to IAB● via email to IAB listStandards process appeal to ISOC BoT● via email to ISOC president

AppealsMake clear, concise statement of the problem● with backup documentation (separate)Make it clear that it is an appeal (not just info)Make specific suggestions for remedyDo not try and jump the steps● wait for specific response for each stepAvoid personal attacks

IPRIPR a BIG problemMany patents on technology now grantedWill be hard to avoid encumbered technology in futureShould prefer technology with no known IPR issuesUse standards process to see if licenses are fair● multiple implementations must use multiple

licenses

IPR DisclosureWG participants should disclose IPR conflicts to WG chair● may not be able to - patent pending● may not know what others in company are

doingWG participants should not push technology when they have a hidden IPR conflict

WG Mailing Lists and Web Pages

<acronym>-archive@lists.ietf.org MUST be on the mailing list● ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/acronym

Additional archive, not the only archiveWG web page can include link to additional web page● Maintain WG work item status, etc.

Web Pages to Know AboutWG Chairs web page● http://www.ietf.org/IESG/wgchairs.html IESG web page● http://www.ietf.org/iesg.html ID-Tracker● https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker

.cgiRFC Editors web page● http://www.rfc-editor.org/

Useful E-mail AddressesWG Chairs Mailing List: wgchairs@ietf.orgAdmin Actions: ietf-action@ietf.orgProcess Actions/Issues: iesg-secretary@ietf.org

Credits for PresentationDave CrockerSue HaresPaul MockapetrisAllison MankinJoyce ReynoldsDeirdre KostickScott BradnerJeff SchillerSteve CoyaMargaret Wasserman

Questions?Questions?

It is OK to ask questions and ask for help

File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 10 February, 2016 Slide 1 Margaret Wasserman WG Chairs Training.

Documents

Transcript of File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 10 February, 2016 Slide 1 Margaret Wasserman WG Chairs Training.

45.2.Mautner Wasserman

CSRIC WG#3 Indoor Location Accuracy Test Bed Report March6, 2013 Stephen J. Wisely & Richard Craig Co-Chairs.

CAIN • WASSERMAN • MINORSKY 11

1 GGF- Grid Storage Management WG Global Grid Forum Grid Storage Management Working Group Chairs: Arie Shoshani (LBNL) Chairs: Arie Shoshani (LBNL) Peter.

Wasserman EnglishRomantics

Babette Wasserman Designer Bracelets

Wasserman Deck July6

Wasserman Death Soul

Wasserman Part 1

CAIN • WASSERMAN • MINORSKY 13

Problem Descriptions Chairs 1. Problems One slide per problem proposed First the proposer talks about it Next WG comments are solicited Chairs only to.

Bebette Wasserman Designer Cufflinks

wasserman hidden markov modeling

Biodiversity data for decisi - University of Auckland · Inauguration, election MC & WG chairs Meetings of WG & MC. Meetings of WG & MC. Meetings of WG & MCMeetings of WG & MC. Meetings

LPWAN WG - Internet Engineering Task Force · PDF fileLPWAN WG WG Chairs: ... Produce an Informational document describing and ... people who work on the respective LPWA technologies.

Wasserman Chest 1997

Http://forge.gridforum.org/projects/dfdl-wg/ DFDL WG Session 1 Summary of Status WG Co-Chairs: Mike Beckerle, Ascential Software Alan Chappell, PNNL.

CAIN • WASSERMAN • MINORSKY 12

Enabling Access to Arctic Location Based Information - the ......2017/10/27 · Jani Kylmäaho Head of Arctic SDI Geoportal WG National Land Survey of Finland SAO Chair, WG Chairs

CAIN • WASSERMAN • MINORSKY • REECE 42