Moving the process document forward
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Sat Sep 6 10:51:38 CEST 2003
I got one of the draft names wrong in this email.
Correction below.
a.
On lördag, sep 6, 2003, at 07:38 Asia/Seoul, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> On lördag, sep 6, 2003, at 00:49 Asia/Seoul, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I think Jeanette is talking about the process for initiating a
>>> proposal for change.
>>
>> I think so to. And I'm pessimistic about that happening quickly
>> except by decisive IESG action.
>
> speaking personally:
>
> And if that happens, then perhaps a proposal from this group does
> become superfluous. but until such time as they do, it is the WG role
> to try and suggest a process to them.
>
> And draft-davies-structural-rev-process-02 itself says, this group can
> decide that it
should be draft-ietf-problem-process-02.txt
> doesn't want to suggest any process other then asking the IESG to
> please fix things. and if that turns out to be the rough consensus
> then fine it gets documented and we are done.
>
> My concern is that if we wait for speedy decisive action and that
> action doesn't come then a year can pass with us being no further
> along then we are now. the only alternative most of us have since we
> cannot affect the IESG in any direct manner is to continue working
> within the context of this WG within the context of its charter.
>
> As i see the SAP proposal in draft-davies-structural-rev-process-00 it
> is a way to create a 'design team', making sure that it gets and
> considers opinions from all involved.
>
> a.
>
>
>
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list