OPEN ISSUE: Improvement WG Oversight
Bound, Jim
Jim.Bound at hp.com
Fri May 16 20:20:15 CEST 2003
This might be a good idea but also a slippery slope in that is ISOC
going to do any better and all we have done is add more process to our
system?
/jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dhc at dcrocker.net]
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 7:20 PM
> To: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: OPEN ISSUE: Improvement WG Oversight
>
>
> 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