Straw process outline for dealing with structural and practic es problems

[Elwyn Davies]

I agree with Brian's view that speed is of the essence.  Whilst there was
little convergence on the way forwards with the process, a significant
fraction of those present recognised that there were problems to solve and
so we need some sort of process to go forwards.  I'll take a look at
draft-hardie-alt-concensus-00 to see if we can merge the proposals, or make
some improved suggestions.  In the meantime maybe some members of the IESG
could give a view on whether this alternative has any resonance for them.

[With my problem statement editor hat on] I will review what was said in the
plenary last night and publish some ideas for mods to issue-02 over the
weekend.

Regards,
Elwyn

> -----Original Message-----
> From: avri [mailto:avri at apocalypse.org]
> Sent: 18 July 2003 10:05
> To: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Straw process outline for dealing with structural and
> practices problems
> 
> 
> 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.
> >
> 
>