On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, IETF Chair wrote:
This note describes a method of starting the next phase of IETF
IETF process change, possibly including updating the change process
itself.
FWIW, I think this approach makes sense.
In all process WGs (or BOFs) I have participated (ipr, newtrk, icar,
mpowr, ...), it either took a horribly long time to achieve a result
(and the result was typically just clarifications, not rocket
science), or the results didn't materialize before the energy was
lost. The only semi-concluded effort, ipr, was set out with very
specific goals ("don't make major changes, just clarify the current
procedures. AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, don't touch RAND") so it yielded
some results after quite a bit of time, but as said, it doesn't seem
even close to comparable to this effort (clarifications vs major
changes).
However, I'm slightly concerned (as has been heard from others) as to
the scope of the process work design team. I fear the task the DT
would take upon itself would be too big (or the [perceived]
expectations of the community too big) so that getting results would
be very challenging if not impossible. For example, the bullet point
below seems to imply, "by the way, it would be nice if you could
re-design the IETF process documents in a consistent manner". PESCI
should concentrate on the "high order bits", not these kind of
"clean-up activities".
Additional conditions for PESCI's work
- a subsidiary goal is to end up with a clearly defined
and interlocked set of process documents, rather than
a patchwork of updates to existing documents
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf