concerns about the process for change

[Aaron Falk <falk@isi.edu>]

Harald-

I'm a little concerned about how things are unfolding post-Yokohama.

I've felt all along that drastic changes were not necessary for the
IETF process and that creative people who understood the history and
philosophy behind the IETF would find small changes which would have
enough impact to reduce the perception of brokenness voiced at the
Yokohama plenary.

That's not turning out to be the case.  And I'm thinking that many of
the the older and wiser heads don't have the patience for the bile
that's being voiced on the problem-statement list.  I know that I
don't.  At this point it literally makes me feel ill to read many of
the list postings, including those from some of the wg trusted
servants.  Now, this is my opinion, FWIW, and I'm sure there are
others who disagree.

However, I'm telling you this because I suspect that there might also
be others who agree.  Sadly, I don't have specific suggestions for how
the situation might be fixed other than the following.

To my knowledge there are three mailing lists discussing issues that
have flowed out of the Yokohama plenary discussion: problem-statement,
solutions, and ietf-quality.  (Is poised discussing this stuff, too?)
AFAICT, only the problem-statment list is posted on the IETF web site.
I _thought_ the ietf-quality list was associated with the COACHES BoF
but the list doesn't seem to be included in the posted agenda.  These
other two lists have had some very interesting and useful discussions.

Moreover, beside the mailing lists, it is hard for someone who hasn't
followed the p-s list for some time to understand the motivation,
scope, and plans flowing out of the Yokohama meeting.  (So, it might
not be surprising to find the greater proportion of those motivated
enough to participate are malcontents.)

I would like to suggest that a web page be created at the top level of
www.ietf.org discussing the effort of "IETF Structure Review and the
Change Process" with a summary of what you think you are doing and why
and pointers to the various working groups, mailing lists, and IDs.
Naturally, this would help with process openness and might draw some
input from people not willing to brave the p-s list or able to find
the others.  

My $0.02.

--aaron