Re: [Pesci-discuss] For whom it may concern..

> So, I see only two options which do not have to be mutually exclusive:
>
>  1) we institute a new process change process which allows distributing 
> the responsibility for getting the necessary changes proposed, discussed 
> and implemented (this is actually similar to how the IAOC effort took off 
> some responsibility from the IESG and IAB), or
>
>  2) we continue to hope that the current or future leadership will drive 
> through the required changes (in addition to keeping up with "day-to-day" 
> business).

Agree that these are two options, and not mutually exclusive.

One addition to 2), though.

When we have actually DONE something, it's usually been good. I'm thinking 
about the I-D Tracker, and the semi-related PROTO work, which has had more 
impact on the IETF than all the noodling about process change we've done 
since Yokohama.

I can't speak for anyone except myself, but  - I DO have cycles to try to 
help, and accept Leslie's point from PESCI, that random proposals don't 
help. I may not be the only one.

We talked about issuing a "call for proposals" yesterday. Please don't. 
You'll get more random proposals.

What would help me, and maybe others, try to help is a "call for proposals 
in a specific problem space".

Figuring out a way to tap cycles in the larger community is important. That 
was why Gen-ART was a good idea - the cycles to do more reviews were "out 
there", they just weren't being tapped effectively.

If you get a proposal that solves a specific problem/"pain point", that 
matters, we already have enough BCPs to actually DO something as a process 
experiment. Not saying that we don't need process evolution, just saying 
that we don't have to do process evolution before anything can get better.

Thanks,

Spencer

> Call me a skeptic, but 2) has not been so successful so far, despite 
> sporadic attempts (remember for example MPOWR and ICAR which were results 
> of an IESG retreat on the topic -- not too different than the one Brian 
> was mentioning).  It just doesn't seem to be possible to devote sufficient 
> energy to do these things, while keeping the "daily business" running.
>
> Hence, my main criticism of the current leadership is not that they have 
> not been able to make these changes: rather, it is that they have not been 
> able to realize that most likely they will never be able to make these 
> changes themselves, and are not able to realize that they must "step out 
> of the way" as soon as possible. 

_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
Pesci-discuss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss