> But, again, to even think about that, the IESG is going to need a lot of > support and bottom-up direction. John, Let me suggest that there has already been quite a bit of that. It has not been any sort of overwhelming, unified, shout-in-a-single-voice, but there really have been quite a few IETF participants calling for just what you suggest. So far, there have been two problems: As always, the IETF also has lots of voices objecting to any particular proposal. So the ability to achieve any sort of meaningful progress requires much more, ummm... "active" management than we tend to prefer. (There is a wg chair technique of asserting what the specific consensus is, and then saying that that assertion will hold unless there is rough consensus AGAINST. This is an example of such active management. Of course, that sounds a lot like a wg chair dictating things and it only works if, in fact, the wg group is eager to make forward progress and gives the chair strong support to be assertive in this way.) The IESG has not been willing to take a real leadership role in effective substantive structural or process changes, to address core issues. It has, instead, deferred things to working groups and then mostly ignored them, and it has spent many months focusing on administrative changes. We do not have the sort of cohesive, self-motivating community we had 10+ years ago. We have a community that really does look to the IESG for leadership. After the Kobe revolt, change did come from the grassroots. The IETF leadership merely had to avoid trying to stand in its way. But we do not have that IETF. We have one that is far more diffuse and, therefore, far less cohesive about how to get things done. Absent any other grass-roots effort, real change is going to depend upon the IESG getting serious about it. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf