Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process (was:
Re:Doingthe Right Things?)
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
harald at alvestrand.no
Tue Jun 3 21:16:18 CEST 2003
--On tirsdag, juni 03, 2003 17:26:50 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<brian at hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> John C Klensin wrote:
>> Summary: If we can't trust the current IESG for reform-process
>> management, we are in deep trouble.
> We have no choice except to trust them, because the IESG approving
> a BCP is the only way (short of anarchy) of effecting change.
> So, as you were suggesting, let's divide-and-conquer by cutting off
> bite sized problems, designing solutions, and sending them to the IESG.
> Er, I'm working on one of those. If everybody here worked on one,
> we might be done soon.
while I agree with you on a number of issues.....
in side conversations, I've made a number of comments on the difficulty of
crossing a chasm in two steps.
In particular, I believe that the problem:
2.5.1 Span of Authority
Overt authority in the IETF is concentrated in the small number of
people sitting on the IESG at that time. Existing IETF processes work
to funnel tasks on to this small number of people (primarily the Area
Directors (ADs) in the IESG). This concentration slows up the
process and puts a very large load of responsibility on to the
shoulders of these people who are required to act as the senior
management for Working Group (WG) chairs as well as acting as quality
backstops for the large number of documents issued by the IETF.
cannot be solved by making small changes to the IETF and IESG procedures;
we need to change the way we make decisions, which is a BIG change.
[yes, I have issues with the wording. But that's not important.]
If there is a core problem that must be solved and cannot be solved by
biting off small pieces, I think we cannot afford to ignore it.
More information about the Problem-statement