Subject: non-problems

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 09:57:37 -0400

Folks-

This isn't a problem.  It's not a solution, either.  So, I am not
sure where to throw it.

I have not read the PS list as a whole in great detail because (a)
you guys move too fast for me! and (b) I think we're wandering in
the minutia a little more than we need to be at this point.  So,
maybe someone has brought this up....  But, I would like to
encourage folks to pop-up a level and consider the fundemental
problems we have discussed (e.g., "transparency of document flow",
or "late surprises", not "choosing a WG chair") **in addition to**
our "non-problems".  We have written a whole lot of standards using
the current process.  We have to be doing something right.  No?
(Maybe not ... maybe we did something right and the whole system
doesn't scale.)

I am not necessarily encouraging folks to do this exercise on this
mailing list (the chairs would likely be getting their rulers ready
for my knuckles).  I am encouraging musing about this in preparation
for the next phase of this whole process on what we should do about
all of our problems.

Examples: If the solutions phase started and someone threw out a
proposal that rid us of a central body that has tight control of all
output (ala the IESG) would people squirm?  What if someone proposed
realigning WGs in a different way (say, a looser, longer-lived way)?
Would that cause alarm?  (With appologies to Dave Clark,) What if it
was proposed that SIRs get to *vote* on documents?  Would that be
wrong?

I am not really asking the questions above -- they are just
examples of things that might get the juices flowing.  I believe
that we have concurred that we have a healthy number of fundemental
problems.  If we were going to fundementally change the state of the
IETF, what would be off limits in your mind?  And, why?

Just something to think about if you're inclined.

allman

--
Mark Allman -- BBN/NASA GRC -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 11:38:02 +0200

> was proposed that SIRs get to *vote* on documents?  Would that be

Mark,

good questions.

I think the problem-process draft's initial section - "what are the core 
values of the IETF that we don't want to lose" - is the closest thing we 
have on the table now to a statemnet of what *not* to change, or criteria 
on which we can judge that change proposals are out of scope.

[parenthesis - I think this would be better positioned as a separate 
document..... but it's not listed in the WG charter, so doing so would 
either take it out of the scope of this group's mandate or require WG 
consensus that it needs doing anyway]

I encourage people to read that section most carefully, and suggest updates 
and improvements to it as a means of answering Mark's thoughtful questions.

                         Harald

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 06:36:26 -0500

Harald,

Nested-parenthesis - the Problem Statement guys thought the Solutions guys
were the ones producing a list of Core Values. We included the list from
previous IETF Plenaries as a starting point, but haven't discussed them in
much detail because we thought they WERE out of scope for this WG.

It's possible that "we hold these truths to be self-evident", but we have
seen minor feedback (from Brian Carpenter, suggesting that we add
"self-governance", for instance), so there probably is a discussion that
could usefully take place on this topic.

If the discussion could/should be taking place here, that's good to know.
Speaking for myself, I didn't realize it was on the table now.

End-nested-parenthesis (when was the last time we did LISP in IETF?)...

Spencer

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 07:46:18 -0400

>on which we can judge that change proposals are out of scope.

The intent of that section was to guide our thinking about the
problem resolution process, so that our problem resolution process
would be aligned with our stated purpose and core values.  At this
point, the core values section is only intended to paraphrase your
presentations of our purpose and core values at the IESG plenary in
Atlanta.  Feel free to let me know if I got anything wrong.

>consensus that it needs doing anyway]

In the process document, the task of documenting the real core
values, mission and goals of the IETF is assigned to the IETF
Improvement WG.  That statement would be in a separate document
(or two or three), and will represent community consensus.

As part of the same phase (Phase One), the WG would also
determine how to measure the performance of the IETF against
our goals, and would take baseline measurements.  This will
allow us to quantify our current performance (where possible)
before undertaking efforts to improve it.

I believe that it is vitally important that we _understand_ the
IETF, before we try to change it.  In particular, I think
that we need to understand what makes the IETF the IETF,
so that we don't sacrifice our identity and strengths in
an effort to improve our performance.

As a relative newcomer to the IETF (~8 years), I'm not
really sure that _I_ fully understand what makes the IETF
the IETF... We've had something of an identity crisis for the
past several years, brought on in part (I think) by the
datacom/telecom convergence and a huge influx of new people,
with different ways of thinking, into the IETF.

Although I think that an historical perspective is important,
this can't simply a matter of the IESG and a few old-timers
_telling_ the rest of us what the IETF is. I think that this
is a process that we need to go through as a community, so
that we can internalize the results.

Today, we have a bunch of unrest, but very little real
understanding of what the mission and goals or strengths
and weaknesses of the IETF actually are. I'm not saying that
_you_ don't understand those things, but we don't have a
critical mass of people with a common understanding of
those things, so we can't reasonably say that the IETF
understands them.

>I encourage people to read that section most carefully, and suggest 
>updates and improvements to it as a means of answering Mark's thoughtful 
>questions.

Actually, the chairs of the WG haven't responded to the
questions about earlier suggested changes...  Are we trying
to write the _real_ core values statement here?  Or just
paraphrase your presentation?

The division between this WG and the next is not carved in
stone.  But, right now, the assumption is that the _next_
WG will document our actual core values, perhaps using
your presentation and/or the core values section of this
document as a starting point.

Margaret