non-problems

[Mark Allman]

Folks-

This isn't a problem.  It's not a solution, either.  So, I am not
sure where to throw it.

I have not read the PS list as a whole in great detail because (a)
you guys move too fast for me! and (b) I think we're wandering in
the minutia a little more than we need to be at this point.  So,
maybe someone has brought this up....  But, I would like to
encourage folks to pop-up a level and consider the fundemental
problems we have discussed (e.g., "transparency of document flow",
or "late surprises", not "choosing a WG chair") **in addition to**
our "non-problems".  We have written a whole lot of standards using
the current process.  We have to be doing something right.  No?
(Maybe not ... maybe we did something right and the whole system
doesn't scale.)

I am not necessarily encouraging folks to do this exercise on this
mailing list (the chairs would likely be getting their rulers ready
for my knuckles).  I am encouraging musing about this in preparation
for the next phase of this whole process on what we should do about
all of our problems.

Examples: If the solutions phase started and someone threw out a
proposal that rid us of a central body that has tight control of all
output (ala the IESG) would people squirm?  What if someone proposed
realigning WGs in a different way (say, a looser, longer-lived way)?
Would that cause alarm?  (With appologies to Dave Clark,) What if it
was proposed that SIRs get to *vote* on documents?  Would that be
wrong?

I am not really asking the questions above -- they are just
examples of things that might get the juices flowing.  I believe
that we have concurred that we have a healthy number of fundemental
problems.  If we were going to fundementally change the state of the
IETF, what would be off limits in your mind?  And, why?

Just something to think about if you're inclined.

allman


--
Mark Allman -- BBN/NASA GRC -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/