Re: [Pesci-discuss] Next Steps: Who performs them?

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Tue, 01 November 2005 22:15 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EX4Pw-000103-Lx; Tue, 01 Nov 2005 17:15:44 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EX4Pv-0000un-0r for pesci-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2005 17:15:43 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20686 for <pesci-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Nov 2005 17:15:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EX4eN-00067T-Um for pesci-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2005 17:30:40 -0500
Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A5C22596C7; Tue, 1 Nov 2005 23:14:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08313-07; Tue, 1 Nov 2005 23:14:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from halvestr-w2k02.emea.cisco.com (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 649DF2596C3; Tue, 1 Nov 2005 23:14:43 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 21:16:42 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, pesci-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pesci-discuss] Next Steps: Who performs them?
Message-ID: <7B02CA4871012A4D8A100A9C@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
In-Reply-To: <tslhdawbe5z.fsf@cz.mit.edu>
References: <tslhdawbe5z.fsf@cz.mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.3 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c
Cc:
X-BeenThere: pesci-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Process Evolution Study Committee of the IETF discussion <pesci-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss>, <mailto:pesci-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/pesci-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:pesci-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pesci-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss>, <mailto:pesci-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1474931771=="
Sender: pesci-discuss-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pesci-discuss-bounces@ietf.org

Sam,

I don't have any big problems with the series of steps and the series of 
teams you outline.
I do have, however, one BIG problem with one of your justifications for it:

--On 1. november 2005 10:06 -0500 Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> wrote:

> I think it is reasonable for the first and second tasks to be
> conducted by a team called by the IETF chairs.  The first task because
> presumably the principles have sufficient community agreement that
> they are not controversial and the second because it seems like the
> only way to get progress.  However the conflict of interest seems too
> strong if Brian is calling special design teams to focus on specific
> solutions or specific proposals.  For one thing, we don't need Brian
> to get involved in order to come up with process change proposals: Ted
> Hardie, John Klensin, Dave Crocker,and many others have all made
> proposals.  We don't need leadership from the chair in order to find
> proposals to consider.  Secondly, the proposals are likely to be
> controversial; a team called up by the chair would inherently get
> unfair access to plenary time, unfair scheduling, etc.

If you see the "specific proposal" team as a competitor in a field of 
teams, each intent on pushing its own proposal, then your second point is 
correct.
However, I believe the situation is different: We will have the need for a 
*coheret* proposal, done by someone who's willing to take input, evaluate 
it fairly, and come up with something that hangs together.

That "synthesis team" (and I believe there can be only one at any given 
time) will have to get the resources it needs in terms of plenary time, 
scheduling and so on.

That team has to be called. And I think that on the list of first tasks of 
the process reform team is to make a sensible proposal on who calls them.

When all's said and done, we might still be unable to come up with 
something that makes more sense than "Brian does it". If so - I prefer that 
solution to "no change".

                            Harald



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