[CWG-Stewardship] Forward Planning Draft

[Jordan Carter]

Hi all,

On 20 May 2015 at 10:30, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at 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 at anvilwalrusden.com
> Awkward access to mail.  Please forgive formatting problems.
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at 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 at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter

*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150520/5b111edc/attachment.html>