[CWG-Stewardship] Forward Planning Draft

[Seun Ojedeji]

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 20 May 2015 00:14, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at 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 at icann.org [mailto:
cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 6:30 PM
> To: cwg-stewardship at 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 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
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150520/7c018f86/attachment.html>