Perceived consensus on Problem Doc

[Alex Conta]

Avri,

The fact that some of the issues were discussed before, at length or 
not, does not change the fact that they were not mentioned in the 
document which was in Last Call. Not addressing those issues in the 
document means that some of the Last Call comments remain unresolved.

Regards,
Alex

Avri Doria wrote:

> 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)
> 
> 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4700 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/attachments/20031203/b69b2e6f/smime.bin