ISSUE: Goal of problem-statement document
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
harald at alvestrand.no
Fri Jun 6 16:03:32 CEST 2003
I have (finally!) gotten around to reading through the problem-statement
document again in detail, and jotting down my various concerns with it.
I think the document is a huge step in a reasonable direction - but I would
just not be human if I did not have issues with it :-)
I've written up the lot of my current concerns (these may change over
time), and put them up on the Web at
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/problems-01-comments.html (for those who
can't wait), but I thought I'd be less brutal to the list than dumping all
of them in one big batch would be, and raise only a few issues per day....
also, that way it's easier for the tracking system to track the issues
independent of each other; I definitely don't expect the group to come to
consensus on my opinion every time!
First issue: Goal statement for the document - I think it's wrong.
Section 1.3 of the document:
We, in line with many contributors to the
mailing list, do not believe that the process of problem resolution
will be helped by continued rework of the root issues in what would
probably be a vain attempt to achieve any sort of consensus.
Instead, the general tenor and scope of the problems identified will
provide a guide in setting up the processes needed to resolve the
problems and provide input to the resolvers.
ISSUE: The normal understanding of "understanding problems" says that if
you start fixing problems that don't exist, you will not be happy with the
result. Going forward with the resolution process of this paragraph thus
appears to be either exceedingly dangerous or belittling the purpose of the
document - one rational conclusion to take is that the authors do not
believe that the problem document will provide significant guidance to the
solution process, and therefore it does not matter whether it's right or
SUGGESTED RESOLUTION: Change this section to say that the document attempts
to be a basis for consensus on the root causes. The perceptions of problems
may be less important in the guidance for resolution, so having multiple
views on what symptoms the problems cause is probably less problematic.
[Don't worry - there'll be specific input later!]
More information about the Problem-statement