non-problems

Margaret Wasserman mrw at windriver.com
Tue May 20 08:46:18 CEST 2003


At 11:38 AM 5/20/2003 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>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.

The intent of that section was to guide our thinking about the
problem resolution process, so that our problem resolution process
would be aligned with our stated purpose and core values.  At this
point, the core values section is only intended to paraphrase your
presentations of our purpose and core values at the IESG plenary in
Atlanta.  Feel free to let me know if I got anything wrong.

>[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]

In the process document, the task of documenting the real core
values, mission and goals of the IETF is assigned to the IETF
Improvement WG.  That statement would be in a separate document
(or two or three), and will represent community consensus.

As part of the same phase (Phase One), the WG would also
determine how to measure the performance of the IETF against
our goals, and would take baseline measurements.  This will
allow us to quantify our current performance (where possible)
before undertaking efforts to improve it.

I believe that it is vitally important that we _understand_ the
IETF, before we try to change it.  In particular, I think
that we need to understand what makes the IETF the IETF,
so that we don't sacrifice our identity and strengths in
an effort to improve our performance.

As a relative newcomer to the IETF (~8 years), I'm not
really sure that _I_ fully understand what makes the IETF
the IETF... We've had something of an identity crisis for the
past several years, brought on in part (I think) by the
datacom/telecom convergence and a huge influx of new people,
with different ways of thinking, into the IETF.

Although I think that an historical perspective is important,
this can't simply a matter of the IESG and a few old-timers
_telling_ the rest of us what the IETF is. I think that this
is a process that we need to go through as a community, so
that we can internalize the results.

Today, we have a bunch of unrest, but very little real
understanding of what the mission and goals or strengths
and weaknesses of the IETF actually are. I'm not saying that
_you_ don't understand those things, but we don't have a
critical mass of people with a common understanding of
those things, so we can't reasonably say that the IETF
understands them.

>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.

Actually, the chairs of the WG haven't responded to the
questions about earlier suggested changes...  Are we trying
to write the _real_ core values statement here?  Or just
paraphrase your presentation?

The division between this WG and the next is not carved in
stone.  But, right now, the assumption is that the _next_
WG will document our actual core values, perhaps using
your presentation and/or the core values section of this
document as a starting point.

Margaret





More information about the Problem-statement mailing list