ISSUE: Goal of problem-statement document

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

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 
wrong.

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!]