IETF problem pinpointing - the followup

[avri doria]

I tend to think that discussing the problems in a very
concrete manner is the one that is most likely to have
a positive effect.  I also think we should limit the
number of things be worked on at a time to a small
number; preferable countable on one hand.

My candidate list includes:

- IESG transparency.  At the moment a lot of
what people think they know abut the process in
the IESG is rumor and innuendo.  Methods for opening
up that body to scrutiny and understanding should be
discussed.

- WG Charters.  There is a lot controversy around
charters.  How the scope is defined/approved, how one
WG fits in with the others and how scope
creep can be prevented.

- RFC process.  the quality is very inconsistent.  While
a lot can be done in the back end of the process to speed
release, more can be done early in the process.  This
includes good advising as well as skilled editors.  Suggestions
for improving the editorial process should be proposed.

- Role of IAB.  In discussions about the IAB, what they don't,
or shouldn't do, is discussed as much if not more that what
they should do.  What should they do?  sometimes i think they
have been become primarily a liaison body.  Is this the case
and is it what is needed.

In terms of speakers, I don't think it really matters.
But if anything the IESG transparency issue should be
presented by a member of the IESG who is eager to have
the body made transparent.  Also, the role of the IAB
should, perhaps, be discussed by someone who understands
what they do and has a view of what they should do.

I think we should, at all costs, avoid having the presentations
made by any of the I* members or WG chairs who regard the
rest of the attendees as a clueless mass of inferiors.
Unfortunately that will leave quite a few of the 'elders'
off the podium.

a.


-- 
Avri Doria
http://www.sm.luth.se/~avri/