Session Date/Time: 28 Jan 2026 19:00

TOOLS

Summary

The TOOLS working group met to discuss the roadmap, seeking feedback on its structure, the high-level goals and epics, and the approach to prioritizing work. Key discussions centered on the effectiveness of broad vs. focused communication, various proposals for resource allocation and goal-setting (e.g., performance targets), and the utility of the different views within the current roadmap tool. The group generally favored focused discussions for feedback and rejected rigid percentage-based resource allocation. The ongoing RPC modernization project continues to consume significant resources, impacting the immediate timing of other roadmap items.

Key Discussion Points

Roadmap Accessibility and Feedback Mechanism:
- The current approach of organizing high-level goals and epics under the roadmap was discussed, with concerns raised about its accessibility for those not deeply following the work.
- A sense of those present indicated that smaller, focused discussions on the tools-discuss mailing list have proven more effective at eliciting community feedback than presenting large amounts of information at once. This approach yielded the most feedback so far.
Resource Allocation Model:
- A proposal was introduced to allocate resources as fixed percentages (e.g., X% to IAB, Y% to IESG, Z% to WG chairs).
- This proposal did not resonate with the team. Concerns included the difficulty of informing such a budget, tracking specific requests against accounts, and the potential for reduced responsiveness to time-critical needs (e.g., non-com tasks).
- The preferred approach is to rely on the team's best judgment, with an escalation path for stakeholders who believe important organizational needs are not receiving sufficient attention.
Performance as a High-Level Goal:
- A suggestion was made to frame work around performance metrics, such as "everything responding within X milliseconds."
- While performance improvements are necessary, using strict performance targets as a high-level goal was seen as potentially misdirecting efforts. It was noted that this falls under the existing organizational goal of "providing the level of performance that meets community expectations."
- Specific bottlenecks should be identified and addressed. One critical performance issue, also a vulnerability, needs to be fixed before the next IETF meeting.
- It was emphasized that making things fast for speed's sake without ensuring correctness is a poor goal.
Roadmap Tool Views and Usability:
- The current roadmap tool presents four views: "Goals" (organizational goals), "Projects" (high-level epics with estimated size, priority, and main user), "Gantt chart" (start/end quarters), and "By Main User" (card list of projects).
- The "Main User" distinction, categorizing projects by their primary beneficiary (e.g., IESG, IAB, RFC-Editor, WG Chairs), was an attempt to provide clarity on resource spread. The discipline of identifying a single main user was highlighted to avoid every project being labeled as "for the community."
- Feedback was sought on the utility of these views and potential improvements. General sentiment indicated users would primarily consult it before meetings or to check the status of specific, annoying issues. Regular users found the existing issue tracking and commentary sufficient.
Prioritization Process:
- There was an agreement that setting priorities for individual roadmap items would be more effective through continued discussion on the tools-discuss mailing list, allowing for broader community input after nuanced understanding of each item.
IPMC Status Update:
- The team is mechanically ready for the IPMC transition, with a new website and boilerplate generation changes prepared. However, deployment is pending official approval and a "go message" from the relevant parties, which are awaiting final signatures.

Decisions and Action Items

Decision: Continue to solicit community feedback on specific roadmap items and goals via focused discussions on the tools-discuss mailing list.
Decision: Reject the proposal for percentage-based resource allocation to IETF bodies. Instead, rely on team judgment with established escalation paths for urgent needs.
Decision: Address specific performance bottlenecks and critical vulnerabilities as they are identified, rather than making overall "speed" a standalone top-level goal.
Action Item: Fix the identified performance-related vulnerability before the next IETF meeting.
Action Item: Continue to refine and gather feedback on the utility and clarity of the roadmap views (Goals, Projects, Gantt, By Main User), including the "main user" distinction.
Action Item: Conduct prioritization discussions for roadmap items on the tools-discuss mailing list once sufficient context has been provided.

Next Steps

Further refine the timing for roadmap tasks, acknowledging the significant resources currently consumed by the RPC modernization project.
Continue focused discussions on tools-discuss to gather detailed input on individual goals and issues.
Await official approval and go-ahead for the IPMC transition.