Re: constitutional convention

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <204378701.1058776269@localhost>, Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes:
>
>
>--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...

The mailing list I'm talking about is for the IESG.
>
>>
>> 	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.

I had thought the IESG, though I suspect it will be a self-selecting 
subset.
>
>> 	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.

My thought was no, but I'm open on this one.  The IAB seems to have 
more confidence from the community, they're the supervising body for 
the IESG in some sense (nomcom plus appeals), and the sense of the 
plenary was that they should do the solution.  I thus see them as the 
body that will judge IETF consensus on this and formally adopt the new 
structure -- and intervene if they feel (or feel that the community 
feels) that the IESG hasn't gone far enough.
>
>>       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.....

Yup.
>
>> 	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....)
>
>:-)
>
>
>
>


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb