Perceived consensus on Problem Doc

[todd glassey]

Avri,
You still have not dealt with the issues of the release
process or in validating that anyone submitting IP to
the IETF has the legal ability to do so...

Todd

----- Original Message -----
From: "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org>
To: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 6:23 AM
Subject: Perceived consensus on Problem Doc


> 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)
>
>