Selecting leadership, take 2

[Aaron Falk]

Dave-

I agree with your analysis.  We're getting bound up in process.
However, I think it is premature to go straight to considering the
solutions in draft-huston-pact.  Getting a document that reflects what
we think the problems are is a valuable first step before moving on to
solutions.  And, while the draft in question makes many good points
about the shortcomings of the current process, it is missing many
observations that were voiced on the podium and at the microphones in
Yokahama and Atlanta.  Perhaps we've surfaced most of the problems and
should just document what we've said so far, e.g., via a volunteer
compiling them into an ID. Then we could move quickly to a discussion
of solutions.

--aaron

Dave Crocker wrote:
> 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/