[RPRWG] Other thoughts from an editor
Mike,
I appreciate you desire to close this effort quickly,
as I also have pressure to return to "normal" work.
However, I disagree with your synopsis of the history,
concerns for the present, and implied (between the lines)
plans for the future. Comments below.
> But, it represents a set of features, values and
> methods that the vast majority
> of the WG approved as the base to move forward.
1) A vast majority of the working group (I think
all but ~10) never read all of the proposals.
2) The text for some of the proposals (Clause #9)
was so poor that its taken over 6 months to generate
a (nearly) intelligable version.
> The process that we followed required that people write
> detailed descriptions of their proposals.
That might have been your intent, but it wasn't reality.
The quality of the original text was insufficient for
understanding by the most motivated reader, so vast
portions of the text are undergoing massive rewrites.
I'm not intending to attack the technical-writer
qualities of the original writers. Rather, I am
trying to counter those that think the foundation
is well defined and therefore should not be changed.
> Others, are choosing to push an agenda to reverse
> that decision.
Your opinion (incorrectly stated as fact) differs
from my observations.
I observe individuals from Luminous and Lantern
working hard to writeup Clause #9, based on
extensive personal interviews with Cisco designers
to discover what was intended. That's three companies
visibly working hard to move things forward. I don't
think these are exceptions, but a reasonable sampling
of the whole (e.g. everyone is working hard).
While I understand the reluctance of some to consider
new and better documented ideas, its a natural part
of the process.
Let's not impede progress by second guessing folks
"agenda" or motives. Lack of sleep and localized
exposures can lead to paranoia and inaccurate
perceptions of intent.
Most importantly, remember that the ultimate Sponsor
ballot will have to address the technical issues.
Addressing them with a talented WG now, rather
than deferring them until Sponsor ballot, is the best
way to ensure quality _and_ an early completion date.
Respectfully,
DVJ
David V. James, PhD
Chief Architect
Network Processing Solutions
Data Communications Division
Cypress Semiconductor, Bldg #3
3901 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95134-1599
Work: +1.408.545.7560
Cell: +1.650.954.6906
Fax: +1.408.456.1962
Work: djz@xxxxxxxxxxx
Base: dvj@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Mike Takefman
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 7:34 PM
> To: dot17
> Subject: [RPRWG] Some thoughts from the Chair
>
>
>
> RPRWGers,
>
> As we come up to our July meeting I wanted to share some
> thoughts with all of you. During the meeting we will be
> discussing our schedule. I believe it is obvious to people
> that our current schedule is not achievable and that we
> need to adjust it. The adjustment has to take into
> account several things. Foremost is the timeliness
> of the standard, naysayers in the industry will point
> to the slip as a reason to discount RPR entirely. We
> must set a date that is achievable in terms of the
> 802 process and our ability to do the work.
>
> Let us recall how we got to this particular place. The study
> group and working group met for over 2 years prior to finally
> making a decision on a proposal to move forward on. That process
> was open to everyone, and every voice that wanted presentation
> time received it. This process provided more than enough time
> for anyone to bring forward proposals and build concensus
> around it. The text that we approved is by no means the
> final answer, it is not cast in stone. But, it represents
> a set of features, values and methods that the vast majority
> of the WG approved as the base to move forward.
>
> The process that we followed required that people to write
> detailed descriptions of their proposals. This had the advantage
> of requiring a certain degree of seriousness on the part of presenters
> to do the work to convince the committee to adopt their proposal.
> It also was intented to insure that all complexity of an
> algorithm was presented to the committee. Clearly in November
> of 2001 the committee was deadlocked around 3 proposals. Work
> was done to converge 2 of the proposals in the hope of achieving
> concensus. The disadvantage of the process was that as concensus
> was built, the text lagged behind the slideware and hallway
> conversations.
>
> In January, a concesus was achieved. Those who failed to secure a
> concensus around their proposals had a decision to make in January.
> Some have embraced the group decision and are working to refine and
> improve it. Others, are choosing to push an agenda to reverse that
> decision.
>
> My point, and I do have one, is that we have to remember the goals
> of the WG. Creating a standard that increases the available market
> for all members of the working group in a timely manner. Standards
> work is about compromise, we achieved a certain amount of momentum
> and it is up to the committee to determine whether the current
> draft is good enough or how to improve it in areas of deficiency.
>
> Improving it first involves clarifying the current text to
> insure that everyone understands the algorithms, state diagrams,
> etc. In other words, it should be complete.
>
> Continued improvement then involves identifying issues, determining
> the severity of the issue, and then considering alternatives to
> closing the issue. It is up to the committee to determine the
> "best" alternative to close an issue.
>
> In closing, remember that my role as chair is to work
> to complete the standard in a timely manner. I appreciate
> all the hard work of people to help achieve this
> goal.
>
> See you in Vancouver,
>
> mike
>
> --
> Michael Takefman tak@xxxxxxxxx
> Manager of Engineering, Cisco Systems
> Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
> 2000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
> voice: 613-254-3399 fax: 613-254-4867
>