Moving the process document forward

[Jeanette Hofmann]

On 2 Sep 2003 at 14:01, Dave Crocker wrote:

> Melinda,
> 
> MS> we do need input on the question of how to tackle the
> MS> restructuring (if it's agreed that it's necessary) question,
> MS> whether it's details on how to construct a blue-ribbon panel
> MS> or to recommend kicking the whole thing over to the IESG.
> 
> The situation is a bit worse than that.
> 
> Other than general references to "restructuring" we do not have anything
> concretely specifying what that means, nevermind whether we have
> consensus to pursue it.

In the problem resolution process draft we differentiate between near-term 
improvements and longer-term efforts aiming to adress structures of the 
IETF.  

In the structural problems improvement process draft we suggest a list of 
issues, which are discussed in more detail in Elwyn's problem issue draft:

o  The Mission Problem (Section 4.1),

      o  the Complex Problems problem (Section 4.3),

      o  the Standards Hierarchy problem (Section 4.4),

      o  the Management Scaling problem (Section 4.6), and

      o  The longer-term portions of the Engagement Problem (Section 4.5)

This list is not meant to be exhaustive. It is just the result of the discussion on 
this list. 

 jeanette




> 
> We could probably get community consensus that the world needs peace.
> But the consensus would have little practical use, in terms of
> predicting that community's embracing of any particular peace proposal,
> or even of giving guidance for how to pursue peace.
> 
> When people explain what they mean by the term restructuring, in terms
> that have some concrete relationship to the operation of the IETF and
> some understanding of the intended, concrete outcomes, *then* it might
> be worth considering how to pursue it.
> 
> d/
> --
>  Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
>  Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>
>