My thoughts about the problems of the IETF

Bound, Jim Jim.Bound at hp.com
Tue May 6 00:53:43 CEST 2003


I agree with what you say about WGs.

But I am getting the feeling here that the IESG has no problems and all
is well.  That is not true is all I am saying.

I have made many supportive comments here pro IESG and pro WG.

The point is the process is broken in several places because we waited
to long to fix it.

The IESG requires some work too is all I am saying and not bashing at
all.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore at cs.utk.edu] 
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 11:38 PM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: moore at cs.utk.edu; Jonne.Soininen at nokia.com; 
> harald at alvestrand.no; problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: My thoughts about the problems of the IETF
> 
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Does anyone think that WGs are perfect?
> Does anyone not think that the WGs own a share of the 
> problems in the IETF? Does anyone think that WGs are capable 
> of doing a competent job at what 
> they're chartered to do ?  (there are some counterexamples...)
> 
> Note that IESG members are already carefully screened, and 
> unlike working 
> groups IESG already has several constraints on its processes that are 
> designed to minimize IESG damage and to force timely action 
> on documents.
> 
> I realize this is a radical suggestion, but maybe rather than 
> imposing even more constraints on IESG what we need is to 
> start screening working group 
> participants and imposing more discipline on WGs so that 
> they'll either produce results in a timely fashion, and 
> within their charter, or they'll be shot down.
> 


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list