Charters, "normal process" versus ISOC, etc. (was: Re

Brian E Carpenter brian at hursley.ibm.com
Mon May 19 10:32:40 CEST 2003


I agree with Scott. I trust Harald and I would be entirely happy for
this work to be done in the General area. But there is no problem about
doing it in an interim area, except that it means finding an interim AD
as well as WG Chairs.

Cobbling together an ad hoc process involving the ISOC Board would
be a big mistake, however. The ISOC Board is automatically part of
the standard process anyway.

   Brian

Scott Bradner wrote:
> 
> I've been trying to figure out what to say in this debate
> 
> I strongly do not like the idea of distorting the normal IETF process in
> this or any other "special" case and was having a hard time figuring out
> the threat model that said we needed to do so.
> 
> I do think that there are quite real problems that need to be fixed but I
> do not think that the IETF chair or the IESG are so broken to think that
> they could control the evolutionary process by picking a chair that would
> do so or to reject the output of a process revision working group even
> though they have the structural ability to do so.  I have not seen an
> indication that the current IESG members (or the Chair) are so disconnected
> from the rest of the IETF to think that they could do that.  (But then
> again, I've not seen much input from the current IETF members on this list
> so I suppose I could be wrong but I do not think so.)
> 
> My preference would be to just do the normal thing and form a working group
> in the General Area with the chair(s) for the group being selected by the
> IETF Chair (using, for example, the process he used to select the chairs
> for the problem statement WG - a quite public process)
> 
> But, if some people are so distrustful of the Chair to keep them from being
> able to support the IETF just using IETF processes to change the IETF
> (which is what we did the last time) then I think that John's suggestion of
> a temporary area is a reasonable one, we have done temporary areas in the
> past (with which I have some familiarity) and it is not a distortion of the
> basic IETF process.
> 
> Scott


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list