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

[Bound, Jim]

I agree too.
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian at hursley.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 3:33 AM
> To: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Charters, "normal process" versus ISOC, etc. (was: Re
> 
> 
> 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
>