Forward Planning Draft
Dear all, Under agenda item 6 today, we will discuss the attached forward planning draft. If you have time before the meeting, please take a look at the document. Best, Grace
Thanks Grace. Overall the roadmap looks well thought out. But I do have a few comments/questions. I don't think it makes sense to cut off all DT work by 26 May. Paul Kane communicated that DT-A wouldn't be finished for at least another 3 weeks; I don't think it will be very efficient for the full CWG to work on SLEs until we have DT-A's recommendations. What happens if a DT needs a few more days after 26 May (e.g., DT-M). What is meant by 'thematic sections'? How will CWG Stewardship signoff of the final proposal be determined? Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 8:10 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Forward Planning Draft Dear all, Under agenda item 6 today, we will discuss the attached forward planning draft. If you have time before the meeting, please take a look at the document. Best, Grace
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 05:01:19PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I don't think it makes sense to cut off all DT work by 26 May.
I don't see how it is possible not to, if there is any hope of having something available for people to read before the Buenos Aires meeting. The last time the CWG continued to have major items still in flight up until the last minute, it released for public comment a draft proposal with really enormous lacunae in it. It is really hard to say anything intelligent about a proposal where major details are still incomplete. In Singapore, the idea was that the DTs were to be "agile" and lightweight and return to the CWG in a week or two at most. In agile, a key element is that you are time boxed. You get done what you can get done by the end of the sprint. If you can't get done by the ship date, then you cut features. My ex-wife used to tell her undergraduates, "I don't want the best paper you can write in any possible world. I want the best paper you can write, in this world, by the deadline." I think it is time we accept we are out of time, and to turn in our work as it is. (BTW, apologies for missing the call today; I made a time-conversion error.) A -- -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Awkward access to mail. Please forgive formatting problems.
Andrew, Do you think that DT-A should stop on 26 May and the CWG should pick up where they leave off and the full CWG come up to speed on what they have been doing? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 1:54 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Forward Planning Draft On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 05:01:19PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I don't think it makes sense to cut off all DT work by 26 May.
I don't see how it is possible not to, if there is any hope of having something available for people to read before the Buenos Aires meeting. The last time the CWG continued to have major items still in flight up until the last minute, it released for public comment a draft proposal with really enormous lacunae in it. It is really hard to say anything intelligent about a proposal where major details are still incomplete. In Singapore, the idea was that the DTs were to be "agile" and lightweight and return to the CWG in a week or two at most. In agile, a key element is that you are time boxed. You get done what you can get done by the end of the sprint. If you can't get done by the ship date, then you cut features. My ex-wife used to tell her undergraduates, "I don't want the best paper you can write in any possible world. I want the best paper you can write, in this world, by the deadline." I think it is time we accept we are out of time, and to turn in our work as it is. (BTW, apologies for missing the call today; I made a time-conversion error.) A -- -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Awkward access to mail. Please forgive formatting problems. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 06:52:36PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Andrew,
Do you think that DT-A should stop on 26 May and the CWG should pick up where they leave off and the full CWG come up to speed on what they have been doing?
No, I don't think that will work either. But you said earlier that DT-A says it'll be another three weeks. From today, that's 9 June. DTs' outputs still have to be integrated with everything else, so it's too late no matter what happens. Therefore, unfortunately, I think DT-A is going to be too late no matter what, and the pragmatic thing to do therefore is to "cut features". Happily, we know how to do this, because there's an existing set of performance SLAs for IANA. The editors could drop those in and call it "done", right now, without further ado. For my own part, as you know, I think CWG should do that anyway, for quite different reasons. But if a DT isn't going to be ready by 26 May, in my opinion one ought to declare that they're missing the end of the sprint, and simply move on. That's what any agile program manager would tell you. In agile, dates are holy, because there's always the next iteration to come. And that's an important message of confidence one ought to be able to send people: "We don't think this is the last chance to make changes." DT-A could continue to put together its important and valuable proposals for SLEs for the future. It could publish them as a follow-on proposal, complete in itself, that the community could decide to adopt shortly after the transition. That incorporation of a well-worked-out community proposal would show the transition was working. Indeed, CWG could even write _that_ into the proposal: "The DT-A is going to come up with these new proposals, and that as part of the initial $time_period evaluation of whether the transition is working successfully, the adoption and implementation of these new SLEs ought to be pursued." It'd be a specific thing to be checked in that initial evaluation. Best regards, A -- -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Awkward access to mail. Please forgive formatting problems.
Hi all, On 20 May 2015 at 10:30, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 06:52:36PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Andrew,
Do you think that DT-A should stop on 26 May and the CWG should pick up where they leave off and the full CWG come up to speed on what they have been doing?
No, I don't think that will work either. But you said earlier that DT-A says it'll be another three weeks. From today, that's 9 June. DTs' outputs still have to be integrated with everything else, so it's too late no matter what happens.
Therefore, unfortunately, I think DT-A is going to be too late no matter what, and the pragmatic thing to do therefore is to "cut features". Happily, we know how to do this, because there's an existing set of performance SLAs for IANA. The editors could drop those in and call it "done", right now, without further ado.
So - DT-A is late because of ICANN's delays. And therefore the IANA customers should agree an SLA/SLE framework that is far inferior to current performance? Why on earth is that a good idea? ICANN's delays have consequences for this process and they are real ones. Jordan
For my own part, as you know, I think CWG should do that anyway, for quite different reasons. But if a DT isn't going to be ready by 26 May, in my opinion one ought to declare that they're missing the end of the sprint, and simply move on. That's what any agile program manager would tell you. In agile, dates are holy, because there's always the next iteration to come.
And that's an important message of confidence one ought to be able to send people: "We don't think this is the last chance to make changes." DT-A could continue to put together its important and valuable proposals for SLEs for the future. It could publish them as a follow-on proposal, complete in itself, that the community could decide to adopt shortly after the transition. That incorporation of a well-worked-out community proposal would show the transition was working.
Indeed, CWG could even write _that_ into the proposal: "The DT-A is going to come up with these new proposals, and that as part of the initial $time_period evaluation of whether the transition is working successfully, the adoption and implementation of these new SLEs ought to be pursued." It'd be a specific thing to be checked in that initial evaluation.
Best regards,
A
-- -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Awkward access to mail. Please forgive formatting problems. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 10:42:25AM +1200, Jordan Carter wrote:
So - DT-A is late because of ICANN's delays.
If you are serious about agile ways of operation, then that's one of the facts that sometimes gets you: not everything is under your control. But anyway,
And therefore the IANA customers should agree an SLA/SLE framework that is far inferior to current performance?
No, as you'll note, I pointed out that IANA customers can later agree to change such a framework precisely because we're supposed to be able to do that sort of thing when we're done. There are all these accountability mechanisms that permit it. If you think that's not true, you are implicitly admitting that ICANN is not ready for any transition because it needs grown up supervision to force it to evolve. Is that really what you want to say?
Why on earth is that a good idea?
The _actual_ reason it's a good idea is because you should never, ever change the thing you're measuring and the instrument by which you measure at the same time. This is such a fundamental tenet of empiricism that I can scarcely believe we are debating it. I do not dispute that the existing SLAs are vastly exceeded all the time or that they're probably too generous given modern operations. But today there are well-established levels of service, and there is a long history of being able to measure "IANA came within [+|-] n% of its agreed SLA over $period". That is a time series that we have. That time series is what we ought to be able to compare with after the transition. If the graph changes in appreciable ways -- ways you can see _just by looking_ today -- then there is either a problem, or proof that the transition is yielding benefits. If it changes not at all, that will be an indication that the transition yielded stability. That is the reason in my opinion we shouldn't change this now. That is also, in my opinion, the reason we shouldn't mourn the fact that DT-A can't possibly complete in time to make changes here in time for the BA meeting, on which more below.
ICANN's delays have consequences for this process and they are real ones.
Yes. And the fact that CWG-Stewardship has delivered everything so late, and the fact that the ICANN meeting dates are set long in advance, and the fact that it took ages to get legal counsel, and the fact that the DTs were supposed to deliver in a week or two but took a month even to agree to, and everything else has consequences for this process. That's the harsh fact about having to deliver a real result in a world constrained by outside actors. I have no objection to CWG noting that DT-A might have had a proposal ready but for egregious delays by ICANN. I have no objection to people standing up in public fora, or putting a big note in the introduction, or so on, and saying that there are parts of ICANN that seemed to be obstructing the process. But I think it is just folly to suppose that anything written after 26 May is actually going to be properly reviewed and ready for people to be able to read a document before the BA meeting. As it is, the CWG plan is to give people very little time. It would be irresponsible to allow things to go later. Several of my colleagues in the other communities knew that I was at least to the extent I was able participating in the CWG after Singapore, and I found myself able to make only a weak defence of the fact that the CWG put out for public comment a proposal that was _in its own admission_ full of gaps. There will not be such a chance for defence at BA: if this thing isn't sewn up and complete, it will simply be laughed at. That means that anything not absolutely critical by 26 May (or, IMO, yesterday or maybe last week) needs to be cut. Best regards, A -- -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Awkward access to mail. Please forgive formatting problems.
Hi, I tend to agree with Andrew on this. I think the other communities for instance have submitted their proposal while still working on their SLA/SLE. Since there is a time factor here, I don't think anything would prevent us from including principles of the SLE in the proposal (for presentation in BA and ultimate submission to ICG), while development of SLE continues. We may even reflect the current SLE afterall we all found it to have worked well just that we are looking for something better which is fine and can be achieved later. That said, I have no idea what may have been the reason for the delay from staff but my guess is that it may have something to do with existing agreements. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 10:42:25AM +1200, Jordan Carter wrote:
So - DT-A is late because of ICANN's delays.
If you are serious about agile ways of operation, then that's one of the facts that sometimes gets you: not everything is under your control. But anyway,
And therefore the IANA customers should agree an SLA/SLE framework that is far inferior to current performance?
No, as you'll note, I pointed out that IANA customers can later agree to change such a framework precisely because we're supposed to be able to do that sort of thing when we're done. There are all these accountability mechanisms that permit it. If you think that's not true, you are implicitly admitting that ICANN is not ready for any transition because it needs grown up supervision to force it to evolve. Is that really what you want to say?
Why on earth is that a good idea?
The _actual_ reason it's a good idea is because you should never, ever change the thing you're measuring and the instrument by which you measure at the same time. This is such a fundamental tenet of empiricism that I can scarcely believe we are debating it. I do not dispute that the existing SLAs are vastly exceeded all the time or that they're probably too generous given modern operations. But today there are well-established levels of service, and there is a long history of being able to measure "IANA came within [+|-] n% of its agreed SLA over $period". That is a time series that we have. That time series is what we ought to be able to compare with after the transition. If the graph changes in appreciable ways -- ways you can see _just by looking_ today -- then there is either a problem, or proof that the transition is yielding benefits. If it changes not at all, that will be an indication that the transition yielded stability. That is the reason in my opinion we shouldn't change this now. That is also, in my opinion, the reason we shouldn't mourn the fact that DT-A can't possibly complete in time to make changes here in time for the BA meeting, on which more below.
ICANN's delays have consequences for this process and they are real ones.
Yes. And the fact that CWG-Stewardship has delivered everything so late, and the fact that the ICANN meeting dates are set long in advance, and the fact that it took ages to get legal counsel, and the fact that the DTs were supposed to deliver in a week or two but took a month even to agree to, and everything else has consequences for this process. That's the harsh fact about having to deliver a real result in a world constrained by outside actors. I have no objection to CWG noting that DT-A might have had a proposal ready but for egregious delays by ICANN. I have no objection to people standing up in public fora, or putting a big note in the introduction, or so on, and saying that there are parts of ICANN that seemed to be obstructing the process. But I think it is just folly to suppose that anything written after 26 May is actually going to be properly reviewed and ready for people to be able to read a document before the BA meeting. As it is, the CWG plan is to give people very little time. It would be irresponsible to allow things to go later. Several of my colleagues in the other communities knew that I was at least to the extent I was able participating in the CWG after Singapore, and I found myself able to make only a weak defence of the fact that the CWG put out for public comment a proposal that was _in its own admission_ full of gaps. There will not be such a chance for defence at BA: if this thing isn't sewn up and complete, it will simply be laughed at. That means that anything not absolutely critical by 26 May (or, IMO, yesterday or maybe last week) needs to be cut. Best regards, A -- -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Awkward access to mail. Please forgive formatting problems. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Like I said before Andrew, I am not nearly as confident as you that it will be as easy to make changes after the transition but I hope you are right. The sad thing in this as Jordan pointed out is that the delays were ICANN caused. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 6:30 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Forward Planning Draft On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 06:52:36PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Andrew,
Do you think that DT-A should stop on 26 May and the CWG should pick up where they leave off and the full CWG come up to speed on what they have been doing?
No, I don't think that will work either. But you said earlier that DT-A says it'll be another three weeks. From today, that's 9 June. DTs' outputs still have to be integrated with everything else, so it's too late no matter what happens. Therefore, unfortunately, I think DT-A is going to be too late no matter what, and the pragmatic thing to do therefore is to "cut features". Happily, we know how to do this, because there's an existing set of performance SLAs for IANA. The editors could drop those in and call it "done", right now, without further ado. For my own part, as you know, I think CWG should do that anyway, for quite different reasons. But if a DT isn't going to be ready by 26 May, in my opinion one ought to declare that they're missing the end of the sprint, and simply move on. That's what any agile program manager would tell you. In agile, dates are holy, because there's always the next iteration to come. And that's an important message of confidence one ought to be able to send people: "We don't think this is the last chance to make changes." DT-A could continue to put together its important and valuable proposals for SLEs for the future. It could publish them as a follow-on proposal, complete in itself, that the community could decide to adopt shortly after the transition. That incorporation of a well-worked-out community proposal would show the transition was working. Indeed, CWG could even write _that_ into the proposal: "The DT-A is going to come up with these new proposals, and that as part of the initial $time_period evaluation of whether the transition is working successfully, the adoption and implementation of these new SLEs ought to be pursued." It'd be a specific thing to be checked in that initial evaluation. Best regards, A -- -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Awkward access to mail. Please forgive formatting problems. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 20 May 2015 00:14, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Like I said before Andrew, I am not nearly as confident as you that it
will be as easy to make changes after the transition but I hope you are right.
For what it's worth, i don't think it would be easy either, neither will doing it now be easy as well as we are already experiencing. The main thing for me is that there is a clearly defined community process to take if/when IFO refuses to accept SLE changes. In summary, as I have earlier stated; "it's either now or never" should not extend to SLE review/changes. Regards
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 6:30 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Forward Planning Draft
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 06:52:36PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Andrew,
Do you think that DT-A should stop on 26 May and the CWG should pick up where they leave off and the full CWG come up to speed on what they have been doing?
No, I don't think that will work either. But you said earlier that DT-A says it'll be another three weeks. From today, that's 9 June. DTs' outputs still have to be integrated with everything else, so it's too late no matter what happens.
Therefore, unfortunately, I think DT-A is going to be too late no matter what, and the pragmatic thing to do therefore is to "cut features". Happily, we know how to do this, because there's an existing set of performance SLAs for IANA. The editors could drop those in and call it "done", right now, without further ado.
For my own part, as you know, I think CWG should do that anyway, for quite different reasons. But if a DT isn't going to be ready by 26 May, in my opinion one ought to declare that they're missing the end of the sprint, and simply move on. That's what any agile program manager would tell you. In agile, dates are holy, because there's always the next iteration to come.
And that's an important message of confidence one ought to be able to send people: "We don't think this is the last chance to make changes." DT-A could continue to put together its important and valuable proposals for SLEs for the future. It could publish them as a follow-on proposal, complete in itself, that the community could decide to adopt shortly after the transition. That incorporation of a well-worked-out community proposal would show the transition was working.
Indeed, CWG could even write _that_ into the proposal: "The DT-A is going to come up with these new proposals, and that as part of the initial $time_period evaluation of whether the transition is working successfully, the adoption and implementation of these new SLEs ought to be pursued." It'd be a specific thing to be checked in that initial evaluation.
Best regards,
A
-- -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Awkward access to mail. Please forgive formatting problems. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
participants (5)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Gomes, Chuck -
Grace Abuhamad -
Jordan Carter -
Seun Ojedeji