[DNA-BOF] [Fwd: Quality/Work Plan for DNA]

[Greg Daley <greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au>]

Hi,

Here is notification of the conditional approval
of the DNA WG charter.

The conditions are outlined in Margaret's e-mail
below.

I'll list some ideas below which we can discuss.

- Identified editors for each of the work item.

Pekka and I will discuss this and begin approaching
people.

If you're interested in editing (particularly if
you are the author of a related draft), please
contact Pekka and I.

(There may be a race condition there, but please
  don't wait to send to us).

- Some reason to believe that we will get sufficient
    review of these work items.

I think that this is principally in two components:

    --> Description of processes and criteria for
        WG's reviews (e.g. Reviewers with experience in
        other WGs, cross area, number of reviews,
        incorporation of feedback, stage of review).

    --> actual identification of a set of people with
        experience and skills to undertake the reviews.

   Once again, if you have an interest in providing a
   review, please tell Pekka and I.  It's easier to
   get more volunteers than we need now, rather than
   search later.

   If there's a good example of how this may be done,
   Perhaps people can suggest a starting place.

   From the quality plan proposal issued before the IESG
   teleconference, the following stanzas were listed:

    "...
    * All drafts will need to undergo review prior to
      acceptance as WG work items, which includes
      demonstration that the drafts provide a simple
      solution to a restricted and well-understood
      problem and that the solutions do not interact
      negatively with existing IPv6 configuration
      and security features, such as SEND.
    ...
    * An effort will be made to determine interest
      from vendors and service providers about the
      inclusion of the proposed features in their
      plans.
    ..."

    I'd guess that we need another paragraph in-between these
    discussing how reviews will be solicited, what base of
    expertise will be drawn upon, and when/ how many reviews of
    WG documents have to be done.

    Do people have any opinions on this?

- Plans for issues tracking and any other quality
    measures.

At this stage, I think I can put together an example
issue tracking system based on our TWiki server here.
It would allow (weak) authenticated access for modification
by editors and WG chairs, and global read-only access
by others.

Under this proposal, editors who wish to use their own
tracking system may do so if they desire, but all issues
lists will be linked from the DNA base page.

If people don't have a violent objection, I could
knock an example up by Tuesday.

Also, I think it's reasonable to require (either) the
use of rfcdiff or similar, or submission to the WG chairs
of document versions for generating diffs.

Greg

-------- Original Message --------
Return-Path: <margaret@thingmagic.com>
Received: from ALPHA8.ITS.MONASH.EDU.AU ([130.194.1.8]) by 
mail1.monash.edu.au (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP 
  id HRWNCF00.D2X for <gdaley@mail1.monash.edu.au>; Fri, 23 Jan 
  2004 05:57:51 +1100
Received: from localhost ([130.194.13.85]) by vaxh.its.monash.edu.au 
(PMDF V5.2-31 #39306) with ESMTP id 
<01L5Q7JV8K6A902MGX@vaxh.its.monash.edu.au> for 
gdaley@mail1.monash.edu.au (ORCPT rfc822;Greg.Daley@eng.monash.edu.au); 
Fri, 23 Jan 2004 05:57:48 +1100
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 510)	id 3F818158002; Fri, 23 Jan 
2004 05:57:48 +1100 (EST)
Received: from smtp.exodus.net (smtp.exodus.net [66.35.230.236])	(using TLSv1 with cipher 
EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits))	(No client certificate requested)	by 
broink.its.monash.edu.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72005120005	for 
<Greg.Daley@eng.monash.edu.au>; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 05:57:42 +1100 (EST)
Received: from ms101.mail1.com (ms101.mail1.com [209.1.5.174])	by smtp.exodus.net 
(8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0MKaww3022330	for <Greg.Daley@eng.monash.edu.au>; Thu, 22 
Jan 2004 12:37:03 -0800
Received: from ala-mrwtemp.thingmagic.com (unverified [66.228.91.169]) 
by accounting.espmail.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 5.2.5) with ESMTP id 
<B0017956391@ms101.mail1.com>; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:57:26 -0800
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:55:40 -0500
From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>
Subject: Quality/Work Plan for DNA
X-Sender: margaret@thingmagic.com@ms101.mail1.com
To: Gregory Daley <Greg.Daley@eng.monash.edu.au>, Pekka Nikander 
<pekka.nikander@nomadiclab.com>
Cc: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Message-id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040122134914.0408a5d0@ms101.mail1.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp)
X-Spam-Level:


Hi Greg and Pekka,

We approved the external review of the DNA charter today, but
before we finally approve the charter (in two week, if all
goes well), the IESG would like to see a quality/work plan
for this WG that includes:

- Identified editors for each of the work item.
- Some reason to believe that we will get sufficient
    review of these work items.
- Plans for issues tracking and any other quality
    measures.

If we can get a short write-up on these issues to circulate
to the IESG by the end of next week, that should help us
to get this WG approved.

Thanks,
Margaret