NOT "inciting to riot" (was: Last Call: IP over MIME toProposed Standard)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On mandag, mai 26, 2003 07:20:39 +0300 john.loughney at nokia.com wrote:

> Hi Spencer,
>

John,
trying to recast your "need to do" in terms of "problems"..... apologizing 
for reformatting your mail so much.... am I understanding you correctly?

> This points to a thought I have had recently.  What we need to do is come
> up with
> - clear rules how things progress

one or more of:
problem: RFC 2026 is not clear enough to say how things should progress
problem: RFC 2026 is not followed, and it's not clear what is
problem: RFC 2026 does not specify the procedures it should have
(here I think I have to ask you what you think, since the meaning of "clear 
rules" changes according to which alternative(s) you pick)

> - (and perhaps what is & is not appropriate for IETF standardization)

problem: the IETF does not know its core mission. That's on the list :-)

> - a simple and straightforward way to resolve disputes

problem: we don't have (and I agree - consensus is neither simple nor 
straightforward in polarized situations)

> - transparent leadership selection process and

I take it this is one or both of:
problem: the nomcom process is not transparent
problem: the WG selection process (general) is not transparent

> - transparent decision making.

one or both of:
problem: the community does not understand how/why a WG makes decisions
problem: the community does not understand how/why the IESG makes decisions

am I misunderstanding you?

>  If we had all of these, we probably would
> be about 80% done (in my opinion).

Maybe.... or we might have an easier time figuring out what the rest of the 
problem is....