WG Last Call on IETF Problem Statement (small proposal toexp and text in sections 2.2 and 2.3)

Elwyn Davies elwynd at nortelnetworks.com
Thu Sep 18 17:55:12 CEST 2003


As far as I am aware, there has been no concensus and no firm decision from
the WG side on how to go forward on the structural and basic process issues.
The WG appears to be happy with recommending independent action, and the
members have gone off to execute, on at least some of the 'immediate'
problems documented in the process draft.

On the other hand a number of voices have been heard saying 'leave it to the
IESG', and we note the IAB has set up the 'Advisory Committee on IETF
Administration Relationships'.  This committee may 'propose IETF management
process or structural schanges' but is (currently) not to work on changes to
the standards development process (including WG management etc).

Jeanette Hofmann, Avri Doria and I published a proposal for the structural
and process change area, but there hasn't been much competition or
constructive comment (apart from to say this will just slow things down).

So if you want a process other than 'leave it the IESG' - start thinking and
saying how!

Regards,
Elwyn

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charlie Perkins [mailto:charliep at iprg.nokia.com] 
> Sent: 18 September 2003 16:16
> To: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: WG Last Call on IETF Problem Statement (small 
> proposal toexp and text in sections 2.2 and 2.3)
> 
> 
> 
> Hello folks,
> 
> Was it decided that the IETF members cannot solve the
> problems, and we have to hand it over to the IESG?
> 
> For those who believe that the IESG has too much power
> and uses it inappropriately, that doesn't sound very hopeful.
> Furthermore, it seems to me that at least some members of
> the IESG are _increasing_ their use of that power over the
> last year.  Is there anything about the current direction of this
> discussion that would encourage them to limit their opportunities?
> 
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Moore wrote:
> 
> >I'm in sympathy with this view.  We can't expect to nail 
> down every problem
> >and get agreement on every problem before we submit a list 
> of problems.
> >We have a good enough list for the IESG and IAB to start 
> working on solutions,
> >we should not give them an excuse to delay doing so by 
> delaying this document
> >any more than necessary.
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/attachments/20030918/4f0c0726/attachment-0001.htm


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list