Re: constitutional convention

[hardie@qualcomm.com]

Steve, Harald,
	I think you're on the wrong track here.  My reading of the 
Vienna meeting
was that a _very_ large number of people wanted _us_ to fix the 
identified problems
in the IETF.  In my opinion, they didn't want a constitutional 
convention, they didn't
want a mass resignation, and they didn't really seem to think that the Problem
working group had done that good a job.  They're tired of the time 
this is taking,
and they just want us to get out and do the work.  Setting up any process
that results in a mass resignation of the IESG or the IESG and IAB forces a
constitutional crisis that seems to me frankly unwise and, more importantly,
doesn't seem like it answers the expressed desires of the community.  If we
let the Problem working group set the process for this, I personally believe
we will be listening to the 150+ on that list instead of the broad community,
and I personally believe that is a mistake.
	In short, I heard: "The IESG is the stuckee for this; it should stop
talking and do it".
	To get that done, we need a document proposing the changes.  I'll
write one, and I encourage anyone else interested to do so as well. 
I agree that
having consensus on that document before presenting it to the community
is a good idea, but I don't think we need a committee of the whole or any
other sub-set to get that done.  We can make it an agenda item when one or
more alternatives have been written.  We do a last call when that is done,
and we can ask the IAB for confirmation by appealing the document ourselves,
as a "peremptory appeal".  If necessary, we can do the same for the ISOC board.
	I think we can do this without that much "sturm und drang" if we
focus on the problems the docs identify, the attitude of the broad community,
and get ourselves away from the negative attitudes and urges of the small
number of  belly-achers.
				regards,
					Ted Hardie