Straw process outline for dealing with structural and practices problems

[avri]

I think it would need a consensus process for this group to pass
this on to the IESG, though of course Elwyn could so, or the IESG
which I believe is well represented on this list, could just pick it up
and combine it with whatever other processes ideas they were
looking at.

In the meantime I think it a good idea for this group to keep talking
about this and any other process suggestions and see if we can come
up with something we can reach consensus on.  If the IESG reaches a
decision point before we are done, so be it,  but we should not
presuppose that they will and should keep working on in WG fashion.

a.


On fredag, jul 18, 2003, at 10:15 Europe/Vienna, Brian E Carpenter 
wrote:

> 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.
>