non-problems

[Spencer Dawkins]

Harald,

Nested-parenthesis - the Problem Statement guys thought the Solutions guys
were the ones producing a list of Core Values. We included the list from
previous IETF Plenaries as a starting point, but haven't discussed them in
much detail because we thought they WERE out of scope for this WG.

It's possible that "we hold these truths to be self-evident", but we have
seen minor feedback (from Brian Carpenter, suggesting that we add
"self-governance", for instance), so there probably is a discussion that
could usefully take place on this topic.

If the discussion could/should be taking place here, that's good to know.
Speaking for myself, I didn't realize it was on the table now.

End-nested-parenthesis (when was the last time we did LISP in IETF?)...

Spencer

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald at alvestrand.no>
To: <mallman at grc.nasa.gov>; <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 4:38 AM
Subject: Re: non-problems


>
>
> --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
>
>
>