Perceived consensus on Problem Doc

[Avri Doria]

Regarding the 2nd Last Call issue on "IETF Problem Statement"  
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem-issue- 
statement-05.txt)

After reviewing the issues brought up during the 2nd Last Call on this  
document the co-chairs believe that there were no issues related to  
those brought up in the 1st Last Call  brought up that warrant going  
though another editing cycle on this document.  We believe that at this  
time there is rough consensus for passing the document on to the  
General Area AD for IESG consideration.

This is not to say that there weren't some old and some new issues  
brought up.  These issues, while they did not pertain to a 2nd Last  
Call, will be passed on to the General Area AD.

Some of the issues were:

- Structural Issues with the document such as too long section titles
- Wordsmithing issues

------------------

- Some of the description of problems are not sufficiently brutal or  
blunt enough and don't have the full impact they should have.
- Some of the descriptions of problems are too brutal and blunt and  
perhaps give the impression of being more real then they really are.   
I.e. the document does not adequately differentiate between problems as  
being perceived and problems as being real.

       These two poles were discussed at length during the year during  
which the document was being developed, and the wording in the document  
is a compromise meant to fall between the two extreme positions.  The  
introduction does mention that work is based on a set of perceived  
problems.

------------------

Further Issues include:

- that WG chairs are not specifically mentioned among those who can be  
responsible for procedural blocks.
- that the selection of WG chairs is often not an open process
- that the IETF culture may be inappropriate for its purpose and not  
merely misunderstood.
- that there are no membership qualifications
- that a comparison to other organizations has not been done to find  
better models for the organization
- that the steps WG should go through are no sufficiently defined
- that WG rules and especially document format are obsolete.
- that there is a lack of formal recognition for those in the WG who do  
the work

Some of these issues had been discussed at length during the year this  
document has been in preparation, and the comments did not offer a  
significantly new or different approach then had been offered before.

-----------------

Our thanks to everyone who participated in contributing their views on  
the IETF and its process,  to those who commented during the two last  
calls,  to the editing team and the editor.

Melinda and Avri
(co-chairs)