modest suggestion for how to proceed

[Margaret Wasserman]

At 08:11 AM 3/26/2003 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>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.

I actually took Keith's suggestion as feedback on one possible way
to move forward...  And, forming committees to further examine the
problem space may be a very good approach in some problem areas.

I've am currently working on a document that tries to do several
things:

         (1) Enumerate the core values that we don't want to lose
                 or compromise while fixing our problems (mostly
                 based on Harald's slides from Atlanta, so folks
                 should provide feedback on that list if they
                 think it is wrong, incomplete, etc.)
         (2) Decompose the problems into specific "areas for
                 improvement" (see below for more detail).
         (3) Prioritize the areas for improvement (along various
                 axes) and identify a few areas to address
                 in our first round of efforts.
         (4) For each area to be addressed in the first round,
                 suggest a process to move forward.

Item #2 above is the most difficult, because there is a complicated
interaction between problems/solutions at this level.  How we divide
up the problems may constrain the solution space, and what type of
solutions we expect will have an influence on how/if problems are
separable.

At the moment, I am working with a top-level division into longer-
term, strategic problems (IETF organizational issues, etc.) and
shorter-term tactical issues (role/responsibility training,
organizational development, etc.), and further sub-dividing from
there.  Comments on this approach are welcome.

We do hope to have a first draft of the process document out in a
couple of weeks for complete review/comment.

Margaret





>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.
>>
>