Moving the process document forward
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Sun Sep 7 00:53:45 CEST 2003
On lördag, sep 6, 2003, at 23:14 Asia/Seoul, Keith Moore wrote:
>> My concern is that if we wait for speedy decisive action and that
>> action doesn't come then a year can pass with us being no further
>> along
>> then we are now.
>
> if this WG tries to get consensus on the way forward, it will take even
> longer.
>
>
I don't see why that is necessarily so. If people were to start
talking about a process and to start making comments on what is wrong
with the SAP idea or to start making other process suggestions we might
get somewhere.
If, on the other hand, all we can talk about is why it would take a
long time to get a process to consensus, then we may create a self
fulfilling prophecy.
As it currently stands this group is close to being on its schedule,
and I believe that if we focused on a process for moving forward we
would get one with consensus.
Personally, I am into trying to find the process that can work and can
represent the various interests of IETF participants. It doesn't have
to be a perfect process, just one that work work and one that would not
leave the community out. While I can't state for certain that the IESG
couldn't do it, I personally think it would be very difficult for them
to take in the breadth of opinion and synthesis it into something that
will satisfy the community and get the job done. All this while doing
their normal IESG work.
From watching the solutions group, it is obvious there are folks with
ideas and I am sure there are many that haven't been aired yet. Now we
need a way to find out which ideas are the ones that will serve to fix
the problems that need fixing. How do we take the many ideas people
have for ways to fix things and come up with some practical workable
solutions. What we need is a process that will take the richness we
have in the IETF community and bring it together into a workable
solution.
a.
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list