Re: IETF Process Evolution
"JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com> Sat, 17 September 2005 12:42 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EGc1w-0006am-Hj; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:42:56 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EGc1b-0006Lf-HR for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:42:35 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA11210 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:42:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from montage.altserver.com ([63.247.74.122]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EGc6n-000787-MF for ietf@ietf.org; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:47:58 -0400
Received: from ver78-2-82-241-91-24.fbx.proxad.net ([82.241.91.24] helo=jfc.afrac.org) by montage.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.44) id 1EGc1G-00005C-L6; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 05:42:15 -0700
Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20050917132617.0368dc20@mail.jefsey.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.3.4
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 14:42:07 +0200
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <E5EEAA4EF3A36060F4F797F3@scan.jck.com>
References: <E1EGI1e-00038I-8N@newodin.ietf.org> <p06230901bf509c2b07b4@[192.168.1.4]> <03c301c5baed$f2aa4df0$75087c0a@china.huawei.com> <p0623090abf50c3b34bc6@[192.168.1.4]> <432B3918.9080303@dcrocker.net> <p06230907bf5107772dac@[192.168.1.4]> <E5EEAA4EF3A36060F4F797F3@scan.jck.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage.altserver.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF Process Evolution
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
I understand the concerns you express. What surprises me with the IETF is the lack of methodology (at least for a French brain). This seems to fit the model since it works: it then should be preserved, at least in part. This may also be one of the systemic root of the problem. Brian introduces the possibility of a one shot test in that area, a way to gain collective experience. So, I would suggest a phased approach. John says a "clear and concise problem definition on which there was obvious community consensus" would be great. To propose one cannot be carried by the whole community: it would be confused, eventually lead by usual people, already addressing the whole problem, new ideas we need would pile and could not be documented enough to gain momentum. On another end, I agree that defining the problem is half defining the solution. I would suggest the PECSI be missioned to come up with several possible basic problem definitions, consensually approved by their supporters (to make sure they are complete) through a Last Call. Then a community debate could be over a PECSI II Charter. That PECSI II would produce a revised IETF model to be commonly discussed. Then a PECSI III could produce a detailed road map to implement it. Such a road map would probably consistently describe the common document Brian calls for (a PECSI IV could write and maintain) and of all the updates to be carried by the appropriate areas and WGs? If that process was positive, it could then be tried in other IETF deliveries processes. If not, at every stage the common debate can decide to terminate it or to adapt it. But I feel that even aborted, each stage would already produce interesting and structured enough results. jfc _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Spencer Dawkins
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Dave Crocker
- Re: IETF Process Evolution C. M. Heard
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Joel M. Halpern
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Spencer Dawkins
- Re: IETF Process Evolution John C Klensin
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Pekka Savola
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF Process Evolution JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Spencer Dawkins
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Leslie Daigle
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Brian E Carpenter