Re: [Pesci-discuss] Growing concerns about PESCI

Some notes on a couple of your points.....

--On 25. oktober 2005 08:48 -0400 John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

> -----------------------
> Addendum: Examples of why this team needs to be considered as an
> extraordinary procedure, created by extraordinary procedures
> and without clear community consent, and cannot be considered
> as an "ordinary design team"....
>
> In no particular order...
>
> (1) Design teams tend to self-constitute although they can be
> selected.  When they are selected by a WG Chair or AD, the
> membership criteria are usually clear and then followed.  In
> this case, membership selection was filtered based, in part, on
> the participants not being an activist and, specifically, not
> having current drafts for reform.  Yet the organizer has a
> reform draft, and is generating new versions of it, and is an
> exception. (20050923)

I've never seen a design team that had clear mebership criteria..... apart 
from the self-selecting variety, the versions I've seen have all been "you 
look like good people; would you care to spend time here".

> (3) The "team" is expected to report at the Plenary, partially
> on the basis of its BOF meeting, but the BOF ends only one
> 50-minute break before the plenary.  Not exactly time for the
> team to meet, carefully consider the discussion at the BOF, and
> prepare a report.  Indeed, while it is reasonable to hope for
> something else, this would appear to be a setup for the "well,
> we just got a lot of input and are thinking about it, stay
> tuned" reports that characterized the admin restructuring
> process.

I very much agree. We specified "must be before the Plenary" in the request 
for a slot, and did not specify *how long* before the plenary - and got the 
(IMHO) worst possible time.
Then we didn't flag this as an emergency in the rescheduling phase. A 
mistake.

(note: at the time of the BOF request being sent in, Brian was acting as 
AD, and I was being proposed as BOF chair. With the reshuffling of the 
"oversight AD" role, Brian took over the chairmanship.)

To my mind, it is good that the PESCI BOF covers some of the ground covered 
before - ignoring it would have been extremely stupid.

Note on the relationship to NEWTRK:
The issues PESCI is looking at - for instance the Chair role and the IESG 
role - are definitely *outside* the remit of NEWTRK.
Asking a group that is flailing/failing wrt its current scope to take on 
work beyond that scope is generally not what I consider useful.

Speaking only as a PESCI member.