[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
constitutional convention
The closest there was to a consensus on a solution path -- and it
wasn't a consensus, it was a majority -- is that the IESG should
take a stab at it. I think we have no choice -- no other option
drew nearly that much support.
Let me propose the following procedure and schedule.
First, we set up a mailing list. (Of course -- that's what
we always do, right? Maybe this time I'll set it up instead,
since I'll get home before Randy. OTOH, Harald will get
home before me.)
From now until the end of August, we think and post rough
ideas towards solutions or parts of solutions. I'd like
to make this phase shorter, but many of us will be on
holiday in August, including me.
Starting in September, we hold weekly conference calls.
We have a retreat in early October to agree on an IESG
consensus solution. We then write like mad to have an I-D
version by the Minneapolis cut-off. The draft should be
structured to contain normative text plus explanatory
commentary, i.e., what function each structural element
performs, or what problem it's intended to correct. Problems
to cite include those from the PROBLEM wg output, plus ones
that we see from our vantage point that most people don't.
Alternatively, the commentary can be a separate I-D keyed
to the constitution I-D. The commentary may include an
appendix saying why we chose not to address certain issues
raised by PROBLEM.
We present our plan, plus selected others -- I suggest that
Avri form a committee to do the selection if there are too
many -- at an extended plenary in Minnesota. I could easily
see this plenary lasting all day Friday (we'd have to ask
the Secretariat if that's feasible, given the contract and
the hotel's space constraints).
We make this a vote of confidence by all of us tendering
our unconditional resignations, effective when the new IESG
would normally take office, i.e., Seoul, with a request to
the Nomcom that the merits of our proposed scheme and its
acceptance by the community be a major criterion when
filling seats, especially the 1-year terms of those who
would otherwise be continuing. I note in passing that if
the new scheme preferred by the community doesn't include
anything like the current IESG structure, our mass resignation
would clear the decks for some new body.
We post this scheme, minus most of the scheduling details,
to the IETF announce list for a two week last call -- two
instead of four, just in the interests of time. We then
ask the IAB to formally ratify it.
I regard the first paragraph as mandatory. The rest is a half-baked
idea that I thought of at the scotch BoF and while walking back to
the hotel. (Gee, separating the hotel from the meeting venue is
useful....)