rfc1603.txt

RFC 的详细文档！

   Each working group will determine the balance of email and face-to-
   face sessions that is appropriate for achieving its milestones.
   Electronic mail permits the widest participation; face-to-face
   meetings often permit better focus and therefore can be more
   efficient for reaching a consensus among a core of the working group
   participants.  In determining the balance, the WG must ensure that
   its process does not serve to exclude contribution by email-only
   participants.  Also note that decisions reached during IETF meetings
   are NOT final, but must be conveyed to the mailing list to verify WG
   consensus.

IETF Meetings

   If a WG needs a session at an IETF meeting, the Chair must apply for
   time-slots as soon as the first announcement of that IETF meeting is
   made by the IETF Secretariat to the WG-chairs list.  Session time is
   a scarce resource at IETF meetings, so placing requests early will



Huizer & Crocker                                               [Page 12]

RFC 1603             IETF Working Group Guidelines            March 1994


   facilitate schedule coordination for WGs requiring the same set of
   experts.

   The application for a WG session at an IETF meeting shall be made to
   the IETF Secretariat.  Alternatively some Area Directors may want to
   coordinate WG sessions in their area and request that time slots be
   coordinated through them.  After receiving all requests for time
   slots by WGs in the area, the Area Director(s) form a draft session-
   agenda for their area, which is then sent to the WG chairs of the
   area. After approval it will be sent to the IETF Secretariat.

   An application must contain:

   -    The amount of time requested;

   -    The rough outline of the WG agenda that is expected to be
        covered;

   -    The estimated number of people that will attend the WG
        session;

   -    Related WGs that must not be scheduled for the same time
        slot(s); and

   -    Individuals whose attendance is desired.

   The Secretariat allots time slots on the basis of the session-agenda
   made by the Area Director(s). If the proposed session- agenda for an
   area does not fit into the IETF meeting-agenda, the IETF Secretariat
   will adjust it to fit, after consulting the Area Director(s) and the
   relevant chairs.  The Secretariat will then form a draft session-
   agenda and distribute it among the Working Group Chairs for final
   approval.

   NOTE:  While open discussion and contribution is essential to working
   group success, the Chair is responsible for ensuring forward
   progress.  When acceptable to the WG, the Chair may call for
   restricted participation (but not restricted attendance!) at IETF
   working group sessions for the purpose of achieving progress. The
   Working Group Chair then has the authority to refuse to grant the
   floor to any individual who is unprepared or otherwise covering
   inappropriate material.

On-line

   It can be quite useful to conduct email exchanges in the same manner
   as a face-to-face session, with published schedule and agenda, as
   well as on-going summarization and consensus polling.



Huizer & Crocker                                               [Page 13]

RFC 1603             IETF Working Group Guidelines            March 1994


   Many working group participants hold that mailing list discussion is
   the best place to consider and resolve issues and make decisions.
   Choice of operational style is made by the working group itself.  It
   is important to note, however, that Internet email discussion is
   possible for a much wider base of interested persons than is
   attendance at IETF meetings, due to the time and expense required to
   attend.

3.3. Session management

   Working groups make decisions through a "rough consensus" process.
   IETF consensus does not require that all participants agree although
   this is, of course, preferred.  In general the dominant view of the
   working group shall prevail.  (However, it must be noted that
   "dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or
   persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement.)
   Consensus can be determined by balloting, humming, or any other means
   on which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course).

   The challenge to managing working group sessions is to balance the
   need for open and fair consideration of the issues against the need
   to make forward progress.  The working group, as a whole, has the
   final responsibility for striking this balance.  The Chair has the
   responsibility for overseeing the process but may delegate direct
   process management to a formally-designated Facilitator.

   It is occasionally appropriate to revisit a topic, to re-evaluate
   alternatives or to improve the group's understanding of a relevant
   decision.  However, unnecessary repeated discussions on issues can be
   avoided if the Chair makes sure that the main arguments in the
   discussion (and the outcome) are summarized and archived after a
   discussion has come to conclusion. It is also good practice to note
   important decisions/consensus reached by email in the minutes of the
   next 'live' session, and to summarize briefly the decision-making
   history in the final documents the WG produces.

   To facilitate making forward progress, a Working Group Chair may wish
   to direct a discussion to reject or defer the input from a member,
   based upon the following criteria:

   Old

     The input pertains to a topic that already has been resolved
     and is redundant with information previously available;







Huizer & Crocker                                               [Page 14]

RFC 1603             IETF Working Group Guidelines            March 1994


   Minor

     The input is new and pertains to a topic that has already
     been resolved, but it is felt to be of minor import to the
     existing decision;

   Timing

     The input pertains to a topic that the working group has not
     yet opened for discussion; or

   Scope

     The input is outside of the scope of the working group
     charter.

3.4. Contention and appeals overview

   In the course of group design processes, strife happens.  Strife and
   contention are particularly likely when working groups comprise many
   constituencies.  On the other hand differences in view are vital to
   the success of the IETF and healthy debate is encouraged.  Sometimes
   debates degenerate into something akin to warfare.  For these
   circumstances, the IETF has an extensive review and appeals process.

   Formal procedures for requesting review and conducting appeals are
   documented in The Internet Standards Process [1].  A brief summary is
   provided, here.

   In fact the IETF approach to reviews and appeals is quite simple:
   When an IETF participant feels that matters have not been conducted
   properly, they should state their concern to a member of IETF
   management.  In other words, the process relies upon those who have
   concerns raising them.  If the result is not satisfactory, there are
   several levels of appeal available, to ensure that review is possible
   by a number of people uninvolved in the matter in question.

   Reviews and appeals step through four levels, each in turn:

   WG Chair

     An appeal must begin with the management closest to the
     operation of the working group, even if the concern applies
     to their own handling of working group process.







Huizer & Crocker                                               [Page 15]

RFC 1603             IETF Working Group Guidelines            March 1994


   Area

     If discussion and review with the WG Chair do not produce a
     satisfactory result, the complainant may bring their concern
     to the cognizant Area Director.

   IESG

     If a concerned party is not satisfied with the results of
     the area-level review, then they may bring the matter to the
     IESG Chair and the Area Director for Standards & Processes.
     The IESG Chair and the Standards & Processes AD will bring
     the issue before the full IESG for an additional review and
     will report the resolution back to the parties.

   IAB

     The IAB provides a final opportunity to appeal the results
     of previous reviews.   If a concerned party does not accept
     the outcome of the IESG review, then they may take their
     concern to the IAB, by contacting the IAB Chair.

   Concerns entail either a disagreement with technical decisions by the
   working group or with the process by which working group business has
   been conducted.  Technical disagreements may be about specific
   details or about basic approach.  When an issue pertains to
   preference, it should be resolved within the working group.  When a
   matter pertains to the technical adequacy of a decision, review is
   encouraged whenever the perceived deficiency is noted.  For matters
   having to do with preference, working group rough consensus will
   dominate.

   When a matter pertains to working group process, it is important that
   those with a concern be clear about the manner in which the process
   was not open or fair and that they be willing to discuss the issue
   openly and directly.  In turn, the IETF management will make every
   effort to understand how the process was conducted, what deficiencies
   were present (if any) and how the matter should be corrected.  The
   IETF functions on the good will and mutual respect of its
   participants; continued success requires continued attention to
   working group process.

4.  WORKING GROUP TERMINATION

   Working groups are typically chartered to accomplish a specific task.
   After that task is complete, the group will be disbanded.  However if
   a WG produces a Proposed or Draft Standard, the WG will become
   dormant rather than disband (i.e., the WG will no longer conduct



Huizer & Crocker                                               [Page 16]

RFC 1603             IETF Working Group Guidelines            March 1994


   formal activities, but the mailing list will remain available to
   review the work as it moves to Draft Standard and Standard status.)

   If, at some point, it becomes evident that a working group is unable
   to complete the work outlined in the charter, the group, in
   consultation with its Area Director can either:

   1.   Recharter to refocus on a smaller task,

   2.   Choose new Chair(s), or

   3.   Disband.

   If the working group disagrees with the Area Director's choice, it
   may appeal to the IESG.

5.  STAFF ROLES

   Working groups require considerable care and feeding.  In addition to
   general participation, successful working groups benefit from the
   efforts of participants filling specific functional roles.

5.1. WG Chair

   The Working Group Chair is concerned with making forward progress
   through a fair and open process, and has wide discretion in the
   conduct of WG business.  The Chair must ensure that a number of tasks
   are performed, either directly or by others assigned to the tasks.
   This encompasses at the very least the following:

   Ensure WG process and content management

     The Chair has ultimate responsibility for ensuring that a
     working group achieves forward progress and meets its
     milestones.  For some working groups, this can be
     accomplished by having the Chair perform all management-
     related activities.  In other working groups -- particularly
     those with large or divisive participation -- it is helpful
     to allocate process and/or secretarial functions to other
     participants.  Process management pertains strictly to the
     style of working group interaction and not to its content.
     It ensures fairness and detects redundancy.  The secretarial
     function encompasses document editing.  It is quite common
     for a working group to assign the task of specification
     Editor to one or two participants.  Often, they also are
     part of the design team, described below.





Huizer & Crocker                                               [Page 17]

RFC 1603             IETF Working Group Guidelines            March 1994


   Moderate the WG email list

     The Chair should attempt to ensure that the discussions on
     this list are relevant and that they converge to consensus
     agreements. The Chair should make sure that discussions on
     the list are summarized and that the outcome is well
     documented (to avoid repetition).  The Chair also may choose
     to schedule organized on-line "sessions" with agenda and
     deliverables.  These are structured as true meetings,
     conducted over the course of several days (to allow
     participation across the Internet.)  Participants are
     expected to allocate time to the meeting, usually in the
     range of 1-2 hours per day of the "meeting".

   Organize, prepare and chair face-to-face & on-line formal sessions

     The Chair should plan and announce sessions well in advance.
     (See section on Session Planning for exact procedures.)

   Communicate results of sessions