Subject: Last call results - process document

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:28:11 -0500

The last call for IETF Problem Resolution Process,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem-process-03.txt ,
has ended.  The comments were primarily on the question of
whether or not to release the document.  There is consensus
that if it is to be published, the longer-term process
changes material would be as a record of the working group's
deliberations and *not* as a set of recommendations to be
acted upon.  There were few comments on the contents of the
document and those focused on improving the set of
recommendations, which given the change in focus of the
document are now more appropriate to the Solutions
discussions.

We'd like to propose adding the following text to the
abstract and introduction:

          This Informational memo is being released to record
          the history of discussions by the Problem WG in
          2003.  While there was working group consensus on
          the portions of the document describing processes
          for short-term and medium term improvements, it
          does not represent a set of steps for longer-term
          improvements for which there was Working Group
          consensus.

Is there anybody who cannot live with adding this text and
sending the document on?

Avri and Melinda

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:24:44 -0600

Ignoring the double-negative comment already mentioned, this text is
very appropriate.

And so is sending the document on.

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Melinda Shore" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 8:28 AM
Subject: Last call results - process document

> The last call for IETF Problem Resolution Process,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem-process-03.txt
,

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:03:06 -0500

I'd prefer that the document not be sent on - as I don't even think 
it's even representative of the group's deliberations.

Keith

---

From: Alex Conta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:48:11 -0500

The Last Call (#2) was the last opportunity to make this document
as inclusive as it should be.

As a reminder, a document like this, supposed to help address problems 
is not to be exclusive, or selective in problems that it lists, since 
the very purpose of it was to gather and document ALL the problems, as 
they were perceived in IETF.

Unfortunately some comments/suggestions considered major by submitters 
remained unresolved, showing that in fact even this document is a 
reflection of some of the very problems that people in IETF hoped 
through this WG's effort to address - some voices are heard and others 
are not.

So, am sorry to say, but I do not think that this document is ready to 
leave yet this WG...

Regards,
Alex

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:04:56 -0500

> they were perceived in IETF.

First, this working group was chartered to produce two documents, one
describing the IETF's problems and the second making recommendations for
a process or set of processes to address the problems identified in the
first document.  The document that just completed WG last call is the
second document.  It documents *no* problems.  Although it does 
reference
problems identified in the first document, the problems described in it
must not be considered "normative" - that's not its function.

Second, it was agreed at the outset that given the nature of what
we were trying to do we could neither expect consensus on everything
in the problem description document nor could we expect it to be
comprehensive.  We are asking, however, whether or not we can operate
in the spirit of consensus in getting these documents through last call.
That means distinguishing between things that we might not like but we
can live with on the one hand and things that we think are so profoundly
flawed that they do need to be fixed on the other.

Thanks,

Melinda

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 00:04:18 -0600

I know I've slept since Minneapolis, but I thought the sense of the
room in Minneapolis was that the process document was running behind
the response to the problem statement document, and that we were
basically punting on trying to come up with a process in this working
group - what we were publishing was the freeze-dried state of the
process discussion, prior to punting.

If I thought the IESG, or the rest of the IETF, was sitting waiting
for the process document so they would know what to do next, heck yes
we should be trying to get it right. They aren't. We're starting
mailing lists to chew on these problems at the rate of two a day (for
one sample this past week).

I think the choices are to publish the document as Informational or to
junk it.

Spencer