Re: [Pesci-discuss] Minutes for PESCI team meeting 5th October 2005

If the following inserts can help?

At 23:59 11/10/2005, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>1. Principles and Goals
>
>* Limited list of sacred cows must be included
>   - open process
>   - rough consensus
>   - running code when we can get it

     - alternative experimentation reports
     - digital convergence with other SSDO (their needs/positions are 
our concerns)
     - user QA

>* All decisions are subject to appeal. A complete complaints, conciliation
>   and appeals process should be documented.

Privacy and Defense rights are to be protected and warrantied.

>* Decision criteria and procedures that support the process should be
>   publicly documented.
>   - This should include criteria for document quality (distinct from
>TechSpec)
>
>* Cycling through leadership positions should be encouraged rather than
>   making them a career.
>   - Debated the underlying goal.
>   - Agreed that discussion of fixed term is not in scope as it is not a
>     goal per se.
>
>* Goal with NomCom is to ensure that there is a sufficiently large pool of
>   volunteers.
>   - Issues of how NomCom work is structured and how much work there is,
>     may impact on this, but discussions of fixing this are solutionism.
>
>* Need a method to develop future leaders within the active community
>   should be added
>   - Problem is that we don't have a large enough pool of candidate leaders
>   - Process must include a way for people to be trained

Local Testing units could be used as local pool of competence, 
representation and IETF cultural training. In coordination with ISOC. 
A way to multiculturalise the IETF.

>* WGs should be primarily responsible for the quality of their output.
>   - An objective is to reduce the number of IESG DISCUSSes
>   - Aim for some consistency of I-Ds as they hit the IESG

There should be a way to block a WG when it becomes politically sided 
or commercially derailed. The problem is that opponents and political 
supporters are outside the IETF, the WG may be on-purpose or lead to 
consensus by exhaustion.

>2. I-D
>* Elwyn has taken over editing the I-D. Aim to have a new version for team
>   review ASAP.
>
>3. Other Points
>* We need to examine each principle that we document to check that it is a
>   real principle and not a solution. Where it is a solution, we need to
>   dig for the real principle.

ditto if introduced solutions do not hide new principles which may 
conflict further on.

jfc

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