[CWG-Stewardship] Forward Planning Draft

[Andrew Sullivan]

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 at anvilwalrusden.com
Awkward access to mail.  Please forgive formatting problems.