Re: [Pesci-discuss] For whom it may concern..

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> An alternative perception is that you *saw* the IAB/IESG
> contributing to the discussion of the solution, trying to help
> lead it towards something that will work.

There obviously were many assumptions floating around, so I'll explain 
mine.

The IESG has had .. less than stellar track record of responding to 
the bottleneck problems.  As a matter of fact, I do not recall a 
single improvement which would have had _significant_ on throughput. 
While the transparency of the work has improved over the years, this 
has obviously not had significant impact on the amount of work getting 
done.

So, I see only two options which do not have to be mutually exclusive:

  1) we institute a new process change process which allows 
distributing the responsibility for getting the necessary changes 
proposed, discussed and implemented (this is actually similar to how 
the IAOC effort took off some responsibility from the IESG and IAB), 
or

  2) we continue to hope that the current or future leadership will 
drive through the required changes (in addition to keeping up with 
"day-to-day" business).

Call me a skeptic, but 2) has not been so successful so far, despite 
sporadic attempts (remember for example MPOWR and ICAR which were 
results of an IESG retreat on the topic -- not too different than the 
one Brian was mentioning).  It just doesn't seem to be possible to 
devote sufficient energy to do these things, while keeping the "daily 
business" running.

Hence, my main criticism of the current leadership is not that they 
have not been able to make these changes: rather, it is that they have 
not been able to realize that most likely they will never be able to 
make these changes themselves, and are not able to realize that they 
must "step out of the way" as soon as possible.

But instead of putting energy to improving the process change process 
and ensuring that it's "something that will work" as you say, it 
seemed to be better to shoot it down based on (what seemed to be) FUD 
reasons.

(FWIW, there already seemed to be at least some consensus for this 
approach at Paris meeting, which is probably why Brian acted as he 
should: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05aug/plenaryw.html)

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