Straw process outline for dealing with structural and practices p roblems

[Elwyn Davies]

A number of people involved in the problem WG have been thinking about an
alternative to using a WG to work through the structural and practices
problems that we believe we have identified with the IETF, and come up with
a proposal for revisions (if any) to the way the IETF operates.

This proposal is offered as an alternative to the proposals discussed at
tonight's plenary...


In outline the plan requires:

    o  Selection of a 'Synthesis and Answer Panel' (SAP) which will
       moderate the process and own the final proposal for change under
       the general oversight of the IESG.

    o  Generation of a list of issues that appear to require attention,
       initially in this document, but subject to additions by agreement
       of the SAP.

    o  Solicitation of contributions from individuals or groups of IETF
       stakeholders which will address solutions to any part of the
       problem space.

    o  Synthesis and moderation of interactions between the various 
       contributions by the SAP in order to create a proposal which 
       appears to result in an organization which will, so far as is 
       possible, no longer suffer from the issues identified, and a 
       minimally disruptive changeover process.

    o  Acceptance of the proposal initially by as large a part of the
       IETF community as possible through open discussion by email and at
       plenary session(s), and finally by the existing IESG at the time
       of completion.

    The plan will be subject to a tight timetable, enforced by the SAP
    with the backing of the I* and intended to deliver an accepted
    proposal at the second IETF meeting after the inception of the SAP.

Constitution and Selection of the SAP

    The SAP will comprise a number of members that is sufficiently low so
    that the group is able to take decisions rapidly and effectively. The
    members of the SAP (SAPs) will be selected to represent the interests
    of as wide a range of the stakeholders in the IETF as is possible.
    To this end one group of the SAPs will be nominated by the existing
    management structures of the IETF (IESG, IAB and ISOC) whilst the
    remainder will be selected through an extension of the standard
    nomcom process.

    There will be eleven members of the SAP as follows:

    o  Two members of the current IESG nominated by the IESG.

    o  Two members of the current IAB nominated by the IAB.

    o  One member of the current ISOC Board nominated by the ISOC Board.

    o  Six members selected by the same process as is used by the
       to select the Nomcom with the variation that the qualification 
       would be attendance at least 5 IETFs with the first attendance 
       must be during 2000 or before.

    The SAP would elect its chair from amongst its members (as with the
    IAB).

    Decisions would be by a voting process determined by the SAP as per 
    nomcom.

    The SAP would also be able to encourage members of the community to 
    address problem areas that appeared to be underrepresented in the 
    solutions presented.

    The whole process should run to a tight timetable - 2 IETFs from 
    initiation to submission of completed proposal might be good!

Regards,
Elwyn Davies

on behalf of Jeanette Hofmann and myself who fleshed out this proposal 
from ideas by various members of the Problem WG editorial team. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/attachments/20030717/341b4377/attachment-0001.htm