A 100.000 foot perspective on "what is the problem"

[Natale, Robert C (Bob)]

Hi Randy,

> > The IAB needs to be more active in terms of architecture
> > guidance, the IESG needs to be more aggressive in terms of
> > steering the efforts of the IETF, and the WG chairs needs to be
> > more decisive in guiding their groups to focus and consensus.
> 
> the problem is that we get a bi-modal message, yours and the "leave
> us alone and just rubber-stamp our documents and pass them to the
> rfc editor."

Yes, I understand that and sympathize with those (like you) who
must deal with the dilemma it presents.  As a group we are likely
biased toward the "leave us alone" side of the equation.  There
are good reasons for that and such an approach can (and has) yield
positive benefits in certain contexts.  On the other hand, it can
be taken too far and I think both the workload and the output
quality of the IETF in recent times demonstrates that is has been
taken too far in our case.  I am arguing that a process correction
in favor of more up-front leadership action is now needed to offset
the effects of process excess (democratic fragmentation and
expert specialization) in recent years.  As I said before, I don't
mean to be suggesting draconian changes in our culture, just a
shift in emphasis away from where we might have gone too far and
toward where we might be doing too little.

> i happen to agree with you.  but it means more work, more push-back
> to the wgs and the authors, more delays because of cycles if the wg
> culture is not producing rigor and quality, ...

Again I agree and sympathize.  However, I believe that more proactive
leadership of the kind I am suggesting will in the near-term lead to
process efficiencies -- i.e., less work overall -- although I would
admit that just about any significant process correction will entail
some short-term costs of the kind you mention.  It's time to pay the
piper.

Cheers,

BobN


> 
> randy
>