Re: Almost certainly (was Re: [Pesci-discuss] Finding and nurturing thebright sparks of genius)

Hi Spencer,

It does depend on what we mean by "principle".

> The work that the PESCI team has done is good work, but we still don't
know
> what the principles ARE - for my definition of "principle" - something
that
> cannot change without the IETF not being the IETF, but turning into
> something else.

We did recognise that there are two grades of principle (maybe loosely
categorised as "immutable" and "guiding").
Would it have helped (would it help in future work) to separate these out,
or would that simply introduce another area for debate?

My personal view is that a lot of previous attempts at process change have
foundered on discussions of the form
- "but if we make that change then we will no longer do xyz"
- "it doesn't matter if we no longer do xyz"
- "oh yes it does"
- "oh no it doesn't"

> My suggestion, based on not a lot of sleep or thought, is that the BOF
focus
> on getting community feedback on what the principles are, and the list
of
> 30-something is a reasonable starting point to winnow from.

Winnowing is fine by me.

We also found, as we put the draft together, that expressing principles
was hard. Repeatedly we found that what we wrote was a consequence of a
principle and not the actual principle. So feedback and discussion of the
list is most welcome.

> I can say this on this list, on the IETF list, at the BOF, or at the
> plenary, but whatever else we need between Vancouver and Dallas for
process
> evolution to move forward, we need to know those principles.
>
> The alternative is that we evolve the IETF process in a way that the
> community will not follow, and that would be very unfortunate.

Thanks,
Adrian

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