I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-problem-process-00.txt

[Brian E Carpenter]

Generally I like this draft. I will comment separately on
Margaret's open issues threads.

> 2  IETF Core Values

I'm surprised not to find self-governance listed as a core value. 

...
> 5.1 Near-Term Improvements
...
>          5. Modify IESG-internal processes to make it impossible for one
>             or two IESG members to block a document.

There is a strong implication here that ADs might do this for
spurious reasons. But if one or both Security ADs are deeply
convinced that a draft constitutes a major security risk, or one
or both Routing ADs are convinced that a draft will lead to routing
loops, isn't it quite appropriate for them to block the document?
Such cases suggest failures much earlier in the process, not 
misbehaviour by the IESG. So I don't think we should fix this, 
because it is actually a vital back-stop, not a bug.

...
> 5.2.1.1 Working Group Charter and Deliverables
...
>     Although the IETF Improvement WG will ultimately be responsible for
>     determining what improvements are required, it should be clear that
>     this WG is empowered to make changes to the IETF organizational
>     structure and processes, subject to approval by the appropriate
>     oversight body (see below), such as:
> 
>          - Updates to RFC 2418, the Nomcom processes and the IESG and
>            IAB charters (as needed) to define a more scaleable and
>            effective organizational structure for the IETF.

I have some difficulty with this. It's inconceivable to me to make
changes to the IAB charter, or to create an IESG charter, without
the overwhelming support of the current IAB or IESG respectively. So
I don't agree that the proposed WG can be "empowered" for this. It could
be chartered to make concrete proposals to the IAB|IESG but the only
workable outcome is consensus between the WG and IAB|IESG.

>          - Updates to RFC 2026 and other published processes to build
>            an effective multi-level standards-track and to reflect any
>            new organizational roles.

Please specifically exclude updates to IPR policy, since we have just
reached consensus over in IPRWG not to do this.

...
>  5.2.2.1 IESG-Directed Approach
> 
>     One possibility is that we could use the IETF WG and document
>     processes defined in RFCs 2418 and 2026 [RFC2418, RFC2026] for the
>     oversight of the IETF Improvement WG.
> 
>     In particular:
> 
>          - The WG would be formed in the General Area of the IETF, with
>            the General AD serving as the "responsible AD".
>          - The documents would be submitted to the IESG for approval
>            and publication, according to the usual IETF processes.
>          - If necessary, any appeals based on the processes or output
>            of this WG would be handled according to the appeals
>            procedures defined in RFCs 2418 and 2026.

A very important step is missing here. All IETF process documents need
to be formally accepted by the ISOC Board, to ensure that we have the
necessary chain of authority to validate the liability insurance.

>  5.2.2.2 ISOC-Directed Approach
> 
>     Another approach would be to ask the ISOC President and the ISOC
>     Board of Trustees (ISOC BoT) to assume responsibility for the
>     oversight of the IETF Improvement WG, similar to our current
>     Nominations Committee processes, as defined in RFC 2727 [RFC2727].
> 
Although I am currently an ISOC Trustee, I certainly can't speak for
the ISOC on this. However, I wouldn't advocate it. Only a few members
of the ISOC Board are truly familiar with the IETF's internal workings.
Having the Board accept the final documents, as noted above, is enough.

  Brian