[Pesci-discuss] Re: pesci-next-steps
Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com> Fri, 24 February 2006 12:07 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FCbjB-0001Dy-0U; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 07:07:17 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FCbjA-0001Di-1M for pesci-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 07:07:16 -0500
Received: from b.painless.aaisp.net.uk ([81.187.81.52] helo=smtp.aaisp.net.uk) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FCbj6-0000Iz-V7 for pesci-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 07:07:16 -0500
Received: from 247.254.187.81.in-addr.arpa ([81.187.254.247] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by smtp.aaisp.net.uk with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.43) id 1FCbj2-0005vY-Pz; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 12:07:11 +0000
Message-ID: <43FEF778.9040001@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 12:09:28 +0000
From: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
References: <13570.1140732529@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
In-Reply-To: <13570.1140732529@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------030602020705040101000605"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 908e7c498db66256d5e0db08ac2f5506
Cc: pesci <pesci-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: [Pesci-discuss] Re: pesci-next-steps
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>
Errors-To: pesci-discuss-bounces@ietf.org
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[ > ] mcr@xelerance.com 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 Pesci-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss
- [Pesci-discuss] pesci-next-steps Michael Richardson
- [Pesci-discuss] Re: pesci-next-steps Elwyn Davies