Re: constitutional convention

[Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>]

I agree with Ted here.

Here's what I took from the plenary:

 o there is NO consensus that the IETF is _fundamentally_ broken

 o there is NO consensus that we need to _fundamentally_ change
   the IETF

 o we had what looked like a vote of confidence in the _current_
   IESG to fix issues identified by the Problem WG

 o some people saw visible improvements recently

 o there are concerns that by attempting to "fix" the IETF we
   will destroy it

I did NOT see hints that the whole IESG should resign. If this is
supposed to be a step within a management structure reformation
strategy then see my last bullet above--it's not obvious we need
measures of this scale.

I think we should bite the bullet, start sweating over what we (the
IESG) believe the solutions should be, and then present it to the
community for a discussion.

Lastly, my impression of the feeling people have is that they don't
need a reform, or a fundamental restructure per se, instead they need
their stuff done, so fix the bugs, but don't break the whole damn
thing.

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin/

Monday, July 21, 2003, 10:30:05 AM, hardie@qualcomm.com wrote:
> 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