OPEN ISSUE: Improvement WG Oversight

Dave Crocker dhc at dcrocker.net
Fri May 16 17:19:57 CEST 2003


Folks,


I urge having ISOC oversight.

Let's remember where the current effort came from.  It was during an
IESG Plenary during which a great many folks got up to the microphone
and expressed serious displeasure, much of it with the IESG.

It does not matter whether one agrees or disagrees with any or all of
those speakers.  What is important is that a broad base of discontent
was demonstrated to exist.

It *is* important to note that the kinds of concerns being expressed are
largely identical to ones that were expressed 10 years ago, so the core
issues are structural, rather than personal. However all of this is
ultimately personal.

Having the IESG control the IETF change process is a very pure
structural conflict of interest.

Having ISOC oversee the process is identical to ISOC's role with respect
to NOMCOM, including minor items like choosing a chair for the effort.

When change comes from broad-based discontent, it is essential that the
principal managers of the change process be detached from either side of
the discontent.


d/

ps.  For those who enjoy irony, I'll note that I was prompted to post my
thoughts by Margaret, who knows full well the details of my disagreement
with her...

--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>



More information about the Problem-statement mailing list