Straw process outline for dealing with structural and practices problems

[Brian E Carpenter]

I think this is a possible approach, but given the lack of convergence
last night on a model, I don't think the subset of us in this WG have
any particular authority to decide. I suggest forwarding this sketch of
a solution to the IESG, in the hope and expectation that they will
rapidly steer in this (or some other) direction. 

What we must avoid is a period of indecision about starting the
process. If we are going the way you suggest, we need the Nomcom working
on it by the end of next week.

   Brian

> Elwyn Davies wrote:
> 
> 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.