Moving the process document forward

Spencer Dawkins spencer at mcsr-labs.org
Tue Sep 2 18:16:08 CEST 2003


Dear Dave,

I have been confused before, but had assumed that "restructuring"
meant at least "fixing 2.6.2 in the current problem statement draft".

If it means more than this, that's fine. But I happen to believe that
2.6.2 is a real problem, and that structural changes are likely
required
to fix them.

("Workload of the IESG", if the draft isn't open in a window on your
desktop/palmtop/laptop/etc.)

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald at alvestrand.no>
To: "Melinda Shore" <mshore at cisco.com>
Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: Moving the process document forward


>
>
> --On 2. september 2003 14:01 -0700 Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net>
wrote:
>
> > Melinda,
> >
> > MS> we do need input on the question of how to tackle the
> > MS> restructuring (if it's agreed that it's necessary) question,
> > MS> whether it's details on how to construct a blue-ribbon panel
> > MS> or to recommend kicking the whole thing over to the IESG.
> >
> > The situation is a bit worse than that.
> >
> > Other than general references to "restructuring" we do not have
anything
> > concretely specifying what that means, nevermind whether we have
> > consensus to pursue it.
>
> I think the WG has the following chartered work item:
>
> > As a second work item, the group will also produce a proposal for
a
> > process to develop solutions to the problems identified by this
working
> > group.
>
> Since we know what the problems are (modulo objections to -issue-03,
which
> I haven't seen much of), there should be at least some possibility
of
> suggesting the required process for fixing them.
>
> This may come in the form of (problem, suggested solution,
> how-to-get-there) descriptions, or it may come in the form of
(problem,
> needed investigation, range of solutions) descriptions; I personally
don't
> think all of our problems will be solved by a single fell-swoop
solution -
> different problems may require different approaches, so there are
probably
> multiple things that can be suggested, refined and adopted - but I
think
> the proposals need to be anchored into "what problem are we trying
to
> solve".
>
> (Yes, I AM working on delivering what I think the IESG was charged
with in
> Vienna - proposing at least some process to deal with at least some
of the
> problems. It's not ready for publication yet.)
>
>                                 Harald
>



More information about the Problem-statement mailing list