My thoughts about the problems of the IETF

[Bound, Jim]

The IESG being more open I think is the jist folks.

IESG below means the body and function not individuals 

Does anyone think the IESG is perfect?
Does anyone not think that the IESG owns a share of the problems in the
IETF?
Does anyone think that the IESG is capable of handling all the current
work?

And we should get the IESG members out of the room with the nomcom
committee for the next nomcom they have no business in there at all.  

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonne.Soininen at nokia.com [mailto:Jonne.Soininen at nokia.com] 
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 4:48 PM
> To: moore at cs.utk.edu; harald at alvestrand.no
> Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: RE: My thoughts about the problems of the IETF
> 
> 
> Hi Keith,
> > and as far as I can tell, they're about as good as minutes
> > ever get, and
> > (fwiw) far better than the minutes of most WG meetings.
> > 
> > even if not terribly detailed, they're still useful as a record of 
> > exactly what got decided and what didn't, along with some 
> occasional 
> > background.
> 
> I would not completely agree with you. I agree that they are 
> better than nothing, but they can hardly be even considered 
> as meeting minutes. They tend to list only the results of the 
> meeting but no actual discussions. In addition, what I would 
> like to see is also the IESG meeting agendas (before the 
> meetings), and the meeting calendar. I think these would help 
> the people to see if their favorite documents are progressing 
> and when. This should not be too much trouble for the IESG 
> (or maybe these are the chair's job... ;)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jonne.
>