Selecting leadership, take 2

[Dave Crocker]

Folks,

Wednesday, December 4, 2002, 6:49:14 AM, you wrote:
> so here's a suggestion:
> - we focus on a leadership role for the "problem description" phase - from


Let's see. We have a major demonstration of grass roots dissatisfaction at
one IETF. And we have statistics showing that IETF work is taking so long to
produce specification that much of its work is too late for the market.

Still, it is not until 4 months later (at the next IETF) that we see the
matter pursued publicly.

A month later we are still debating the procedure for selecting the leader
for the effort to study the problem.  (Not propose solutions, just consider
what the problem is.)

And we are  given a proposal that says it will be  4 more months to
"formally state intent to charter."  Not to do the chartering, mind you, but
just to state an intent to charter.

And so on.

Hence we will have a solution to the immediate management problems sometime
in 2005, if we are very lucky.  (And that would make it faster than a lot of
IETF working groups now need to do their work.)

In other words, the path this discussion is going down is a very good
demonstration of the productivity problem the IETF has been demonstrating.

That leads to the simple question:

     A proposal is on the table. It lists some issues and proposes some
     steps to take. It does not claim to solve all of the problems at once,
     but rather to take some productive steps. Incremental steps will come
     later. Hence we would attack the IETF productivity problems
     incrementally, the same as its successful technical work.

So the question is:

     Why not discuss the proposal that is already on the table?


d/
-- 
 Dave <mailto:dhc@dcrocker.net>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850