Moving the process document forward

John C Klensin john-ietf at jck.com
Mon Sep 8 00:15:53 CEST 2003



--On Saturday, September 06, 2003 07:38 +0900 Avri Doria
<avri at acm.org> wrote:

> 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.

But, unless I misunderstand parts of that document --which is
possible, of course, it isn't going anywhere unless the IESG
takes action, if only to start appointing people.  That brings
us back to Brian's position, and the questions I raised during
the Vienna plenary: either the IESG has to take responsibility
for moving things forward from this point, or we are stuck.
Now, "the IESG takes responsibility" could involve their
deciding to create some SAP action, or their deciding to create
some other design team mechanism, or their deciding to create
some follow-on WG(s) (my least favorite option), or their
deciding to actually do or propose something decisive (for
community review and/or as an experiment).  But, any way you
look at it, I think there are only three possibilities:

	* We continue to discuss issues and possible solutions
	for a very long time, probably until the proverbial hot
	place freezes over.
	
	* The IESG takes _some_ action.
	
	* We conclude that the IESG is sufficiently uninterested
	in effective change that the appropriate Minneapolis
	plenary action is to insist that all of them resign,
	effective as soon as the Nomcom can come up with
	replacements who are more receptive to change and
	evolution. 

Fortunately, my sense is that the odds that the latter is
necessary are very, very, low.  And that makes the second choice
the best one, I think clearly so.

    john



More information about the Problem-statement mailing list