ISSUE: Goal of problem-statement document
spencer at mcsr-labs.org
Sun Jun 8 07:51:10 CEST 2003
I understand - I wondered about this when typing my note,
but you said it better in your note than I thought it in my mind!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald at alvestrand.no>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer at mcsr-labs.org>;
<problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 6:34 AM
Subject: Re: ISSUE: Goal of problem-statement document
--On lørdag, juni 07, 2003 23:45:08 -0500 Spencer Dawkins
<spencer at mcsr-labs.org> wrote:
> I can't speak for others, but my goal here was to avoid
> having to figure out what the IETF consensus was on a
> prioritized root cause list before moving on any root cause.
> This looked like death to me. I don't believe there are ANY
> scope limits on discussions about the relative priority of
> root IETF problems, unlike our normal engineering work.
> So I thought developing a root cause list (which we have
> done, at least at some level) was sufficient, without spending
> time trying to determine priorities. I thought this was "good
actually I tend to agree with your sentiment, but not with the text of the
document as written.
if we can formulate the text as saying "we think there is IETF consensus
that this statement of root causes is good enough to guide us into the
process of what to try to fix first", I think it would be better.
What I reacted most strongly to was the statement "a vain attempt to
achieve any sort of consensus" - we need SOME sort of consensus.
More information about the Problem-statement