Decision process [Re: [Pesci-discuss] stack overflow]

Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 10/25/05 4:59 PM, "Dave Crocker" <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> 
>>What *used* to mark the IETF as distinctive was its ability to focus on
>>practical issues in a timely fashion and make real forward progress.
> 
> 
> 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?

    Brian

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

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