Re: Next steps

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

I certainly would like to see the IESG take responsibility.
I do doubt that you have the time to focus on this, though,
while still on the norml treadmill. So I think the IESG needs
to decide how to proceed, quickly, but not take on yet more
work in the process.

Be warned, though, that if the IESG does this, some voices in
the problem WG will be raised (concentration of power type
arguments). Having Nomcom name a panel avoids that.

    Bran

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> At 08:34 AM 7/21/2003 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> >>The reason I raised my hand against a design team is because
> >>that suggests a closed method of picking them, as usually
> >>practiced in WGs. An open process (Avri has a suggestion)
> >>to pick a blue ribbon panel is much better.
> >
> >my headache with an open process to pick a blue ribbon panel is that
> >before we can pick the panel, we have to have a community consensus for
> >the method by which we pick it.... this, too, takes time.
> 
> Is there something wrong with reasoning that runs like this:
> 
> We already have a community-approved, representative  method for
> picking people to manage the IETF -- the method is called the
> nomcom process, and the people they picked are called the IESG.
> 
> So, we don't need to create a new blue-ribbon panel, a WG, a design
> team or any other construct to manage the IETF.  It's the IESG's
> job, and we should do it -- while offering appropriate community
> visibility and opportunities for community review and feedback, of
> course.
> 
> Margaret