modest suggestion for how to proceed

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

it seems clear that we've identified that there isn't just one core problem 
- so splitting up the task of dealing with them might be the Right Thing to 
do.

I'd think that those activities might be thought of as subgroups of our 
editing team - so far, I don't think Elwyn has been inundated with people 
offering to write or rewrite part of his document for him, nor have we had 
much feedback on Margaret's call for "defining mechanisms to solve the 
problems" - which IS constructive rather than analytic activity, and 
definitely within the WG's charter, so people who are waiting to "do 
something" should definitely be able to jump on that.

One thing about the list below is that it is perhaps too omphaloskeptical 
(love that word for "navel-gazing" :-) - one contributing factor to the 
stresses the IETF is under is in fact the "world outside the gates" - our 
relationship to the industry, our relationships with other standards 
bodies, our relevance to the market.

We're largely irrelevant to Ethernet standardization, and want to stay that 
way, but are impacted by decisions made in ITU, OASIS, 3GPP or IEEE, and 
*deeply* impacted by industry consensus that certain technologies are worth 
pursuing or not worth pursuing for standardization. (Database access 
protocol standardization is *dead* - and not just because we didn't do it.)

If your proposal means that more people contribute text rather than 
commenting in the abstract - I think it could be worthwhile.
But the chairs are in control....

             Harald

--On tirsdag, mars 25, 2003 10:37:17 -0500 Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu> 
wrote:

> I believe that in order to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the
> problem(s) facing IETF we are going to need to make an informed
> assessment of each aspect of IETF's operation.   If we don't look
> specifically at each piece we run the risk of neglecting serious problem
> areas when trying to map out a solution.  Indeed, we seem to be heading
> in that direction.
>
> I therefore suggest that we form committees, analogous to design teams,
> to look specifically at problems with WG operation, problems with IESG
> operation, and problems with IAB operation.  Each committee needs to also
> consider problems in the interactions between its area of concern and the
> others, even though this will cause some overlap.
>
> In considering WG operation it would be appropriate to treat each area
> separately, because different areas operate differently and are subject
> to different stresses.  This might indicate multiple committees to look
> at WG operation (not necessarily one for each area).
>
> The committees need to be populated with well-informed people, which is
> to say that the IESG committee needs to have some (say about half)
> current or former IESG members, and similarly for the IAB.   Each
> committee should be tasked with writing a section of a document that
> describes the problems in its area of concern, the initial draft to be
> completed in 60 days.
>
>