Re: [Pesci-discuss] Finding and nurturing the bright sparks of genius

Elwyn,

one further thought.....

--On 26. oktober 2005 12:09 +0100 Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com> 
wrote:

> If we agree that there is some sort of  problem, it seems to me that
> almost any means is legitimate as a way to find the kernel of a solution.
> If the current draft does revisit the ground covered by 'problem' maybe
> it will trigger the Eureka moment in somebody for some part of a
> perceived problem and they (and maybe some of their colleagues) can come
> up with a strawman that we can discuss.  Until we have a strawman, the
> discussion is likely to remain unfocussed and procedural rather than
> solutional as it has done for the last couple of years

we have, in the years since Yokohama, as Dave's fond of marking time, had 
literally dozens of strawmen for how the process should be changed - 
including mandatory deadlines on WGs, constitutional limits on WGs per 
area, term limits on ADs, RFCs in HTML, I-Ds in XML, creating public IESG 
ballots, taking document review away from the IESG, splitting up the IESG 
into functional units, instituting early review, instituting late review, 
instituting cross-area review, changing IESG voting rules, appointing WG 
secretaries, public document tracking, making WG chairs shepherd 
documents... just to name a few.

Some of these have been adopted, most have not. And of the set not adopted, 
one common thread for many is that we do not know *how to make that change*.

The "just do it" department has usually come up against the principle 
described in the PESCI document as

>    G5.  Avoid changes that would require unrealistic resources or
>         behaviours.

PESCI itself is a short-term event. Its legitimacy is not even interesting 
to me - it needs none, if its output is right.

My most burning question is whether section 6 of the PESCI document is a 
realistic and acceptable way forward to get the process of getting 
important changes done running - or whether the proposal needs further 
elaboration or change in order to answer that question at all.
And to have any information about that, someone needs to comment on *that*.

So far, I don't think many have.

                      Harald