Moving the process document forward

[Avri Doria]

Hi John,

You are right at the end of the day, the IESG has to take some action 
(leaving open the possible view that to take no action is to take 
action)

I think there are two paths:

- they can figure it out a process on their own.
or
- the Problem WG can come up with a suggestion it reaches consensus on 
and after being reviewed by the IETF in LC it is sent to the IESG.

In the first case they can do anything they wish.  The community 
doesn't really get much of a say other then in the context of Nomcom.  
In the second case, one can hope they would go with the consensus 
reached by the WG etc.  I.e. the community does get to voice an opinion.

The IESG gave the community an opportunity to voice its opinion on the 
process to be taken; i.e. it created this WG with its charter.  If this 
WG  doesn't come up with one, I think it is tantamount to inviting the 
IESG to do as they please.

If this group can come to closure on a process (not the solutions to 
the issues, that is not our task) in short time, we can send that on.  
If we can't, we fail in meeting our charter and await  their pleasure.

a.

On måndag, sep 8, 2003, at 12:15 Asia/Seoul, John C Klensin wrote:

>
>
> --On Saturday, September 06, 2003 07:38 +0900 Avri Doria
> <avri at acm.org> 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.  the only alternative most of
>> us have since we cannot affect the IESG in any direct manner
>> is to continue working within the context of this WG within
>> the context of its charter.
>>
>> As i see the SAP proposal in
>> draft-davies-structural-rev-process-00 it is a way to create a
>> 'design team', making sure that it gets and considers opinions
>> from all involved.
>
> But, unless I misunderstand parts of that document --which is
> possible, of course, it isn't going anywhere unless the IESG
> takes action, if only to start appointing people.  That brings
> us back to Brian's position, and the questions I raised during
> the Vienna plenary: either the IESG has to take responsibility
> for moving things forward from this point, or we are stuck.
> Now, "the IESG takes responsibility" could involve their
> deciding to create some SAP action, or their deciding to create
> some other design team mechanism, or their deciding to create
> some follow-on WG(s) (my least favorite option), or their
> deciding to actually do or propose something decisive (for
> community review and/or as an experiment).  But, any way you
> look at it, I think there are only three possibilities:
>
> 	* We continue to discuss issues and possible solutions
> 	for a very long time, probably until the proverbial hot
> 	place freezes over.
> 	
> 	* The IESG takes _some_ action.
> 	
> 	* We conclude that the IESG is sufficiently uninterested
> 	in effective change that the appropriate Minneapolis
> 	plenary action is to insist that all of them resign,
> 	effective as soon as the Nomcom can come up with
> 	replacements who are more receptive to change and
> 	evolution.
>
> Fortunately, my sense is that the odds that the latter is
> necessary are very, very, low.  And that makes the second choice
> the best one, I think clearly so.
>
>     john
>
>