[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: constitutional convention


--On 18. juli 2003 00:27 +0200 Steve Bellovin <smb@research.att.com> wrote:


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.

I like this! Some comments and questions inline.

	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.)
solutions@alvestrand.no is already active, and published; I think that's appropriate for the public discussion. I've got on my TODO list to point gen.ietf.org at the same server, but that's for later in the month...

	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.
which size of "we"? IE all the IESG, subgroup of IESG, subgroup + invited expert? If subgroup, the process may allow more effective teleconferences.

	We have a retreat in early October to agree on an IESG
	consensus solution.

Query: Should we invite the IAB?
Some of the ideas being floated would impact them too.


      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).
And then we write like crazy again to create something that incorporates the feedback from the community.....

	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.
and no matter which scheme is supported, it's likely to include the relabelling of positions and reshuffling of responsibilities, so taking off all our dots is again helpful to letting the nomcom get its work done.
Note: if the scheme involves restructuring the role/name/existence of the IAB, we need them to "buy into" the deck-clearing scheme too - one reason why I think of inviting them to the retreat.
	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....)

:-)