Re: [Pesci-discuss] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-davies-pesci-initial-considerations-01.txt]

[Pekka Savola <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 	Title		: Moving Forwards with IETF Process Evolution
> 	Author(s)	: E. Davies
> 	Filename	: draft-davies-pesci-initial-considerations-01.txt
> 	Pages		: 15
> 	Date		: 2006-1-13
>...
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-davies-pesci-initial-considerations-01.txt

Thanks for the revision.  It'd be interesting to know what the next 
steps with this are..

I've re-read the document.  I agree with Bert's comments.  In 
particular, sections 1-3 seem like a bit lengthy introduction to the 
topic, but in the interest of ensuring clarity for those who consider 
proposing process change processes, I don't find it too objectionable.

>From Principles, P4 is indeed a tricky one.  I'd say that "Formal 
consent from [current leadership]" is too strong wording.  I'd say 
that they must be allowed to comment on the proposal.  Whether they 
could consent to it or not is IMHO irrelevant.  The whole point is 
that if there would be IETF consensus for making the choice, I'm not 
sure whether it's OK that any of {IESG,IAB,IAOC} alone should be able 
to block the process.  (I'd be OK if some form of consent was needed 
from a majority of the bodies.)

As my own major comments,

1) I still can't believe P6 wasn't removed already.  The bar for 
making process change proposals is too high already -- why should we 
need to add, "oh by the way, please redesign our current process 
documents while you're at it.. THANKS!".  This doesn't seem 
productive.

    P6. The revised process should be documented in a new set of coherent
        and comprehensive documents, rather than updates to the existing
        ad hoc set.

2) I think the wording of principles is intentionally very subtle or 
it should be clarified or split in two.  Some of the principles talk 
about the IETF process change, some seem to talk about process for 
developing the process change, e.g.:

    P1. Changes to the IETF process must themselves be agreed by an open
        process approved by the IETF community.
    P2. The process for developing and agreeing these changed processes
        must itself be the subject of IETF rough consensus.

Is having two different principles intentional?  If different 
principles apply to the different steps of the process (or 
process-development process) I'd encourage splitting up the principles 
so it becomes clearer how the principles apply.

As it is, I'm confused about the applicability of the listed 
principles and one way or the other, this seems to call for rewording.

editorial
---------

    At the time of writing, two process related working groups exist:
    newtrk (New IETF Standards Track Discussion) and ipr (Intellectual
    Property Rights).  Their charters, mailing lists, etc., may be found
    via http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html#General%20Area.

==> this is an example of text that IMHO can be removed.

    P2. The process for developing and agreeing these changed processes
        must itself be the subject of IETF rough consensus.

==> s/agreeing/agreeing to/ (or something else missing?)

Appendix A.  PESCI Announcement

==> this could be replaced with a link to the message in the 
IETF-announce archives.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

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