Hello to all,
Personally. I think the iesg (and ietf) is a process that seems to be
working OK, insofar as
it accepts input from any user who cares to subscribe to the relevant groups
such as me ...
I gladly accept 20 - 40 e-mails daily for the opportunity to throw in my
comments when they seem relevant,
and otherwise to observe when people who know more about the topic debate,
and try to learn from same.
If anyone cares about my opinion, this arena of opinions is one of the
closest approximations to a true democracy
i have ever seen, of which i totally approve, wish to see continue, and will
As responsive to the original post, I support full discussion on the ietf
list, and look forward to the debate.
I must admit that this is not only in response to this post, but also in
more or less ) response to other recent posts re
the whole mission of ietf / iesg ... any limitation of this global user
input seems unacceptable ... one only need look at ICANN to
see my whole point ...
Oh well, I have said all I have at this point, let the flame wars begin,
----- Original Message -----
To: <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 19:37
Subject: RE: A charter for the IESG
From: ext Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no]
Subject: A charter for the IESG
Some discussion has taken place on the POISED list
(poised(_at_)lists(_dot_)tislabs(_dot_)com), but the point has been made that
for such a
potentially important document, the IETF list may actually be a more
appropriate venue for discussion. Hence this note.
Could you point to the archive of this list? At least the pointer in the
'Poisson' WG (concluded)
(http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/OLD/poisson-charter.html) does not seem
to be valid. It would be rather interesting to see what has been discussed.
This IESG charter attempts to capture what the IESG has
believed that it
has been asked to do by the IETF community. Most of the
document is simply
collecting references to sections of other IETF BCP documents, and
attempting to form a coherent picture of what the IESG is
supposed to be
doing. I do not believe that it shows the IESG to be much
what the community currently believes it is.
Is this view of the IESG share by the whole IESG? What I mean is if you have
discussed this within the IESG already?
What I hope to do with this document is:
- Discuss it on this mailing list and on the POISED mailing
list as the
community finds appropriate
I am not sure what would be the right 'process'. However, at least I
personally would find it better to have the discussion in a discussion list
that is also officially alive, and has a current archive. This makes it
easier for everybody to follow/contribute to the discussion.