Attempt at an overview of what's going on

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

Here's a suggestion for text to make visible on "what's currently going on 
within the IETF to address problems".

Two things for us to think about wrt this:

- Does it say the right things about what's currently being done?
- What are the things that we the IESG need to start happening?


                       Harald
------------------------------------------------
Status of change efforts within the IETF

The efforts to address the structural problems in the IETF has
been structured in two phases:

 * Identify what the problems are (the Problem WG)
 * Address the problem

The last part has turned out to be multiple efforts, with
individual lifetimes, control patterns and agendas. This
overview tries to call out what the current efforts are, and who
is in charge of them.

It uses the index of the Problem WG's "issues" document
(draft-ietf-problem-issues-03) as its structuring mechanism.

2.1 Participants in the IETF do not have a Common Understanding
of its Mission

The logical response to this is to formulate the IETF's mission
in terms that the community can agree with.

The Problem WG has had suggestions floated to set up a small
group to work on these formulations. No current activity.

2.2 The IETF does not Consistently use Effective Engineering
Practices

At the Vienna IETF, the COACH BOF, led by John Loughney and
Spencer Dawkins, tried to address this issue, focusing on
changes to procedures and introduction of tools. It was not
clear from the BOF how one should go forward from there.

There is also the SIRS experiment, run by Brian Carpenter and
Dave Crocker, that attempts to get more review into the IETF
process, that could be seen as coming under this topic.

2.3 The IETF has Difficulty Handling Large and/or Complex
Problems

Addressing this seems to require more thinking across areas and
in architecture. The IAB has attempted to bring effective
thinking to bear on some problems; the SIRS experiment is also
intended to bring more cross-area review. No current focused
activity.

2.4 Three Stage Standards Hierarchy not properly Utilized

The solutions@alvestrand.no mailing list is being used to
discuss various forms that the standards hierarchy could take.
The open process of having various proposals jostle each other
seems to be well suited to the problem.

2.5 The IETF's Workload Exceeds the Number of Fully Engaged
Participants

Suggestions to increase motivation for participants have been
floated. One can also imagine reducing the workload, but since
many participants' engagement is linked to specific work items,
reducing scope reduces participants too; not clear that this
will converge. No current activity.

2.6 The IETF Management Structure is not Matched to the Current
Size and Complexity of the IETF

The IESG is discussing proposals on restructuring the work of
the IESG. The current plan is that there will be a community
discussion of these toics in Minneapolis (fall 2003).

An Advisory Committee, with Leslie Daigle as chair, has been
formed to investigate the parts of the relationships between the
IETF and other bodies that impact on this item. This group, too,
has hopes of presenting its preliminary findings in Minneapolis.

2.7 Working Group Practices can make Issue Closure Difficult

The EDU team, formed in the spring of 2003 under the leadership
of Margaret Wasserman, has tried to bring more resources to bear
on WG Chairs training, and also to add training for document
editors. The team, which is being managed in the General area,
expects to bring out a publicly visible charter and Web
resources page in September.

2.8 IETF Participants and Leaders are Inadequately Prepared for
their Roles

The EDU Team has attempted to make more resources available for
participant training. So far, no specific proposals for training
of leaders (apart from WG chairs and document editors) has been
proposed.