[Pesci-discuss] Re: pesci-next-steps

[Elwyn Davies <[e-mail]>]

Hi.

I updated the draft - new version and diff attached

I addressed the two sets of comments included below plus a couple of 
editorials:

Scott W Brim wrote:
> Hi there.  Tiny things ...
>
> On 02/23/2006 13:53 PM, Elwyn Davies allegedly wrote:
>>    This document sets out a strawman proposal for how to organize the
>>    revision and update of any part of the Internet Engineering Task
>>    Force (IETF) processes including those for developing standards and
>>    other specifications.  It does not propose specific changes to any of
>>    these processes, which should be the subject of future documents.
>>    However, it does identify some initial target areas for process
>
>                       propose ??
>
Done.
>>    change.
>
>>    In a previous document [I-D.davies-pesci-initial-considerations][ref]
>>    a design team selected by the IETF Chair suggested some goals and
>>    guidelines that should be followed in setting out to change any of
>>    the processes used in the IETF.  In the light of the design team's
>>    experience, this document suggests a possible way of organizing such
>>    process change work and also identifies a target area which should be
>
> should be?  --> perhaps s/which should be/as/
>
> The "should" later on is appropriate.
>
Done.
>>    the initial focus for process change to address the problems that
>>    were summarized in [I-D.davies-pesci-initial-considerations].
>
>>    [I-D.davies-pesci-initial-considerations] also contains a extensive
>>    reading list of background material which documents many of the
>>    processes which might be the subject of change through the process
>>    suggested in this document.  One problem that has been identified is
>>    that this material has been built up piecemeal over the lifetime of
>>    the IETF and it is neither entirely self-consistent nor easy to
>>    navigate even for experienced IETF participants.  An overview and
>>    guide to the existing and draft material has been developed
>>    [I-D.carpenter-procdoc-roadmap].  Over time it would be desirable to
>>    develop a more coherent and consistent set of documents for the
>>    processes.
>
> Either this should be a recommended task or it shouldn't be in here.
> I'd like to see it deleted here and added to the bullets -- something
> like "propose a structure for the documentation of the IETF process that
> would result from their recommendations".
>
Agreed - done.
>>    This should include:
>
> This review should include
Done.
>
> Finally, you'll fix up the xrefs?
Done.
Michael Richardson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Elwyn, I read your nice simple document today.
> I felt an immediate response was waranteed, so I'm typing on the bus.
>
> I agree with everything.
>
> Please I'd improve.
> 2.0:	recall I kept asking if this was the meta-process or
> 	the meta-meta-process.
>
> I want to suggest that this be made explicite --- your document
> is describing a meta-meta-process. 
>       process:		      what a WG uses (such as "IPSEC")
>       meta-process:	      what a meta-WG uses (such as "newtrk")
>       meta-meta-process:      your document
I think this is clear enough from the intro to s2 so I haven't done 
anything more.
>
> 2.1:  I think it is important to say that your meta-meta-process is
>       simply a choice of a common IETF methodology --- the design team.
>       i.e. no new technology is being proposed.
>
>       It should be clear that newtrk, for instance, didn't really go
>       the design team method. To a large extent, I'd call all WG lists
>       "self-selected committee of the whole".
>       A design team is often not self-selected, and does not represent
>       the whole.
I removed the word 'new' from the first sentence in s2 and added a 
sentence to s2.1 to reinforce this.
>
> 3.0:  you could consider reducing the problem set to just "IETF Chair",
>       I doubt that any solution could be found to deal with that problem
>       that didn't involve the IESG.
>
> Maybe, instead of worrying about how to streamline the IETF, we should
> restrict ourself to streamlining the IESG.
In a sense that is what is suggested.  I am not actioning this one.

The rest is for later...
>
> <SOLUTIONISM>
> I would see things like bringing the IRTF in formally under the IAB,
> maybe changing the name from "IETF #65 meeting" to "IAB #65 plenary".
>
> I'd like to see things like having people/design-team publish an
> Informational RFC as being the basis for a WG charter, for instance.
> </SOLUTIONISM>
>
> - -- 
> ]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.           |  firewalls  [
> ]   Michael Richardson,    Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
> ] [e-mail]      http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
> ] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [
>
Regards,
Elwyn

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