Moving the process document forward

[Brian E Carpenter]

Reading draft-ietf-problem-process-02.txt and 
draft-davies-structural-rev-process-00.txt, I'm concerned that we
are falling into our own trap (i.e. over-engineering).

To me things are not so complicated. We have a list of problems
ready to publish. We have a measure of agreement that the current
leaders (IESG + IAB) ultimately have to show leadership in
implementing change to solve those problems, without fixing what
isn't broken. So we should basically send the list of problems to the
IESG and tell them to set up design teams to fix them. The
decomposition in draft-ietf-problem-process-02.txt is certainly
useful because it suggests a structure of design teams,
but I think this WG would be best advised to stop there.

   Brian

Melinda Shore wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 04:33 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> wrote:
> > are you asking for input on how we should structure the process for
> > achieving at a set of changes, or on what the changes should be?
> 
> The latter is, strictly speaking, out of scope.  But
> we do need input on the question of how to tackle the
> restructuring (if it's agreed that it's necessary) question,
> whether it's details on how to construct a blue-ribbon panel
> or to recommend kicking the whole thing over to the IESG.
> 
> Melinda