Re: [Pesci-discuss] stack overflow

[Scott W Brim <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 05:22:51PM -0400, Melinda Shore allegedly wrote:
> I'm increasingly convinced that the decision-making process is
> no longer appropriate for what the IETF has grown into.  There
> seem to be several problems - for example, this kind of
> decision-making is easy to disrupt.  Another is that as the
> organization has grown there's a greater diversity of intentions
> among the participants and the odds that there are participants
> unwilling to compromise go up.  Another is that if it's
> difficult to find people with the skills to manage these kinds
> of discussions when you have three dozen working groups, it's even
> more difficult to find the people when you have one hundred working
> groups.  And it also seems to me that there's a big problem with
> getting decisions through the stack (that word again) of
> approvals before something becomes implementable.  In fact,
> unlike some of those other bodies, there is no individual who
> can go out and say "make <x> so" for anything in the standards-
> making process.  That brings transparency, but there's a cost
> for that transparency.
> 
> A difficulty with trying to change the decision-making process
> is that it's so intimately connected with the membership/participation
> model, and that question has a third-rail quality to it.   But
> I think that the reason that decisions aren't getting made is
> because the process we use for making decisions has become an
> impediment.  What works well for a small group of people who are
> more-or-less on the same page may not work at all well for a
> large group of people with significantly divergent interests.

I love it.  Please (please!) suggest solutions.


On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 04:50:50AM +0200, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin allegedly wrote:
> The current system is WG 
> consensus by exhaustion and IETF consensus by abstention (how can 
> Members be competent and have a vision in the area of every LC).

Yes.


On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 04:34:10PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> >I'm increasingly convinced that the decision-making process is
> >no longer appropriate for what the IETF has grown into.
> 
> The PESCI team tended to consider this as one of the things
> we couldn't consider changing, and therefore there's nothing in
> section 4 suggesting any change in this area. Are you arguing for
> a change, and in that case can you offer a draft principle?

As Brian says, we didn't think it would be legitimate to change the
process for changing the process -- it's a boostrapping problem, we
have to use what we have now to get to the next level.

_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss