PACT comments (Re: Selecting leadership, take 2)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

Dave said:

> Does draft-huston-pact list any problems that you disagree with?  Does it
> suggest changes that you disagree with?

I have been trying to remain silent on the PACT document, partly because I 
wanted to applaud the authors for bringing their concerns into the open, 
and to welcome them as participants in the process; partly because I 
regarded it as the task of other IETF community members to evaluate this.

But Dave's repeated beating on "why don't we just do this" seems to run the 
risk of letting my silence be interpreted as "no objection".

So just for the record:

- I disagree with the formulations of P, A and T properties of the PACT
  document.

- I disagree with the idea that these are the most important properties of
  the IETF process

- I think section 3.1 roughly documents existing practice for new WGs, and
  therefore disagree that it proposes a change.

- I disagree with section 3.2

- I disagree that section 4.1.1 changes existing practice

- I disagree with section 4.1.2

- I disagree with section 4.1.4

- I disagree with the authors' decision not to identify, at the time of 
publication, any place where discussion of their document is supposed to 
take place

- I disagree with Dave Crocker's desire to discuss the document's solutions 
rather than to focus on the problems

- I disagree with the idea that the rest of the IETF should give special 
weight to my input on the matter......

that should at least be an answer to the question.

At the moment, I won't comment further on this document on this mailing 
list, since I believe it distracts from the attempts to formulate the 
problems.
If someone wants to suggest a more appropriate place, I might do otherwise.

                    Harald