Straw process outline for dealing with structural and practices p roblems

[James Seng]

Have you look at draft-hardie-alt-consensus-00.txt. I think some of part 
of the SAP idea is already captured there, altho you bring more 
formalization on how SAP (review team in ted's draft) comes about.

It is worthwhile to your idea and how Ted's draft combine...

ps: Not sure where we could have the discussion tho...

-James Seng

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.
>