non-problems

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On 19. mai 2003 09:57 -0400 Mark Allman <mallman at grc.nasa.gov> wrote:

> 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?

Mark,

good questions.

I think the problem-process draft's initial section - "what are the core 
values of the IETF that we don't want to lose" - is the closest thing we 
have on the table now to a statemnet of what *not* to change, or criteria 
on which we can judge that change proposals are out of scope.

[parenthesis - I think this would be better positioned as a separate 
document..... but it's not listed in the WG charter, so doing so would 
either take it out of the scope of this group's mandate or require WG 
consensus that it needs doing anyway]

I encourage people to read that section most carefully, and suggest updates 
and improvements to it as a means of answering Mark's thoughtful questions.

                         Harald