modest suggestion for how to proceed

[Margaret Wasserman]

>So my next question is, is there ANY problem that has been
>suggested, that might have a resolution that can be worked out
>in isolation?

Yes. I believe that the following problem (at least) can be
worked on independently of the others:

"IETF Participants and Leaders are inadequately trained."

And, several of us are already working to address one aspect of
this problem -- WG chairs training.

I think it is very important that the organization does not
sit still while we omphaloskepsize ourselves our of existence.

One of my top goals in the "process" effort is spin out several
small, tactical problems that can be addressed in the short
term, while we work on longer-term problems.

I do realize that this will have the affect of making our current
situation more tolerable and lessening the perceived need for
more drastic longer-term measures... Thoughts?

Margaret






>I suspect that the answer could be "yes" - I took a couple of
>swings, based on the current draft, but there are other
>possibilities, and other possibilities might be less coupled and
>more valuable.
>
>If the answer turns out to be "no", that would be unfortunate,
>because I also agree with Dave, that things don't get better
>until we start solving problems, and we haven't solved problems
>yet, in this forum, anyway.
>
>Agreeably yours,
>
>Spencer
>
>--- Scott W Brim <sbrim at cisco.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 10:04:31AM -0500, Keith Moore allegedly
> > wrote:
> > > >If we want to split up the work, identifying ANY work that
> > can
> > > >be done in relative isolation seems key...
> > >
> > > this is the mistake we so often make in working groups,
> > focusing them
> > > so narrowly that they work at cross-purposes with other WGs
> > or other
> > > interests.
> >
> > In that case, the problem is in the identification of work
> > that can be
> > done in relative isolation -- that is, in having clean
> > functional
> > interfaces.