Re: design teams (was Re: v 1.2, IETF material)

[Frank Kastenholz <[e-mail]>]

Dave,

I agree with everything you say -- but -- my view is that the
IAB/IESG/IETF Reform is a major piece of work. It has required a lot
of time on the part of many people in the community. It still needs
work in filling out the details, etc (e.g. the discussion going on
with David Brandin).  Similarly, design teams will be a major piece
of work, requiring lots of time, etc, etc, etc.

I would hate to hold up progress on the IAB/IESG/IETF Reform because
we are bogging down in the swamps of Design Teams. All I am asking is
that we finish one job before going on to the next. If we try to do
too much in parallel then both efforts will suffer.

Also, even with Formal Design Teams I feel that the issues that you
cite will arise and that they will take up approximately the same amount
of time that they do now. For example, you cite the:

 >                           public discomfort about the SMP/SNMPv2 
 > process

I think that the discomfort is not about the fact that Marshall, Keith,
Jeff and Steve went off and wrote something up. The discomfort that I
have noticed centers on the fact that after their work was published,
when the W.G. review started, some members of the community came up with
changes that they would like, extensions, etc, etc. The original authors
have argued against some of these changes on technical grounds. The argument
is an endless loop of the form:
	1. J-Random Member says "add foo"
	2. J-Random Original Author says "No -- foo is a bad idea because..."
	3. Go to step 1.

This algorithm would be invoked regardless of whether the D.T. concept
is formalized or not. What is needed in this instance is some mechanism
to break the loop.

--
Frank Kastenholz