At 1:39 PM -0500 9/16/05, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
While it seems plausible that we could use the same mechanism for protocol
design and for process evolution, my understanding of the Problem working
group's efforts and the subsequent newtrk/icar/proto/mpowr (and yes, there
were others) efforts is that this approach simply does not work.
Spencer,
"simply does not work" is good rhetoric, but it doesn't fit all the
facts.
Groups like NomCom and IPR have taken on tasks and done them, with community
discussion of their charters and with community discussion as their documents
went through the process. They are process change groups, and they work.
Let's say I put forward a charter like the following:
WG Name: New Queues (NQ)
Description of Working Group:
The IETF has too many decisions passing through the same body, the IESG.
The creation of the IASA and IAD has removed one set of tasks from that queue,
but there are a considerable number of others which might be moved.
In order to return the IESG to its historic task of managing working groups and
their output, this working group will describe a process by which new decision
making queues can come into being. While the process will be general, the
working
group will fully specify the creation of a process management decision making
body. Among other targets for new queues: oversight of registered values in
IANA
registries; IETF responses to RFC-Editor queries related to RFC-Editor
published documents;
approval of experimental and informational documents that are not created by
working groups.
Goals and Milestones:
1st Draft of document describing general queue creation mechanism
1st Draft of document describing process management decision making body
2nd Draft of GQCM
2nd Draft of PMDM
WGLC GQCM
WGLC PMDM
Publish QGCM
Publish PMDM
Re-charter to use GQCM for new queues, or close.
Can the IETF community not discuss whether this is the output it wants
and this is the direction of change it wants in terms of this charter? It may
say "no",
but how to say yes or no to a charter is pretty clear, as is how to participate
in the
group or react to its output. Using an ad hoc mechanism to get from the
existing
process change mechanism to a new one would work well if we had strong consensus
on where we want to go in process change, but that is the same condition in
which
working groups achieve success as well. If we do not have strong consensus on
the
desired process change, the ad hoc mechanism has far muddier mechanisms by
which it is created, by which people participate, and by which its output may be
challenged. The most obvious mechanism for the last is for someone to put
forward
an alternate proposal. If there are alternate proposals than those coming from
the design
team, how do you want to decide among them in the absence of a working group?
Sure, we can invent all kinds of mechanisms to handle it that are equally ad
hoc, but
as I said in the Paris plenary, the hard but probably right answer is to use the
existing mechanism one last time to replace it, then move on. That will require
a lot of work from the Area Director, the WG Chair, and the community, but it is
still the right answer.
regards,
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf