I would like to note that the use of this process was not agreed to by a consensus of the IESG. Brian sent early versions of this proposal to the IESG, and it received considerable pushback, some of it from me. I strongly encouraged Brian to use a design team to draft a charter for a tightly focused working group in the General Area instead. I agree with Brian that general discussion of IETF process change tends to diverge and to move slowly, but I believe that working groups like NomCom show that we can succeed with focused charters in establishing new procedures or revising existing ones. I believe the public chartering process of a focused working group is a useful, necessary part of the openness of the IETF process, and that the public discussion within that charter, once established, is critical for process change of the scope envisioned. It is not clear from the note below whether every volunteer to serve will be a part of the PESCI team team, or whether the group will be selected from among the volunteers by Brian. I ask him to clarify that point. It is not clear from the note below whether the pesci-discuss list is the discussion list for the PESCI design team or a conduit of community input into its deliberations. I ask Brian to clarify that point. Brian notes that after his design team reports to the IETF on the IETF's goals and principles multiple things may happen, among them: >- decide whether to renew the PESCI design team (assumed below) > or use an alternative discussion forum > - consider various process change proposals from any source >- reach a team consensus on a consistent set of proposals > and a sequence for implementing them, with target dates. All > proposals must embed the principle of rough IETF consensus and > must provide an appeal mechanism. > - one of the proposals, likely the first, may be a proposal > for a new process for process change > - post the proposals as Internet-Drafts intended for publication > as BCPs It is not clear who decides whether to renew the PESCI design team. Its creation is a unilateral decision of Brian as Chair; is the decision for renewal subject to public review? Given the lack of a working group, who decides among alternatives agreed to by consensus of this design team and those proposed outside of this mechanism, should there be alternate proposals that are proposed to the IETF? Though Brian notes that there are multiple possible outcomes after PESCI reports, this step appears to be a concrete proposal for how to proceed: >forward proposals for approval as BCPs* and acceptance by > the ISOC Board. Until such time as the new process for process > change has been approved, the proposals will be submitted > directly to the General Area Director and the approval body > will be the IESG. However, the IESG members' principal chance > to comment on and influence the proposals is prior to their > forwarding for approval. Brian has commented in the past on the difficulty of him being both Chair and General Area Director, and this highlights the problem. Brian is choosing to start the PESCI effort as IETF Chair(Roll 1); he will lead it (Roll 2); he will then forward its proposal to himself as General Area Director (Roll 3). The IETF has had a serious queueing problem for a long time, as things have evolved such that "important to the IETF" has meant "passes through the IESG". That's deeply wrong (and very slow), and it needs to change. Getting us to a point where new queues are available for distinct tasks is a good idea, and "process change management" is clearly a distinct task from "manage working groups", which is the IESG's basic job. But getting us to that new point by funneling the interim change process through a single individual (in however many multiple roles) is equally wrong. I ask Brian to adjust this plan so that PESCI's output is a charter for a working group that can achieve at least the first task "set up a new change management process" according to the existing system. I strongly support the need for change, and I believe that to achieve the appropriate community involvement this is required. regards, Ted Hardie At 11:21 AM -0400 9/16/05, IETF Chair wrote: >There has been quite a bit of community discussion of IETF process >change in recent months. Obviously, process changes must obtain >rough consensus in the IETF and follow the procedures in place >(principally RFC 2026 today). However, past experience has shown >that general discussion of IETF process change on the main IETF >list, or in a normal working group, rapidly tends towards divergent >opinions with consensus being extremely hard and slow to establish. >On the other hand, we have experience that discussion of simply >formulated principles and of consistent process proposals can be >constructive and convergent. > >This note describes a method of starting the next phase of IETF >IETF process change, possibly including updating the change process >itself. > >As IETF Chair, I intend to lead a short term design team, to be >known as PESCI (Process Evolution Study Committee of the IETF). > >I will request PESCI to > - review recent discussions on IETF process changes > - identify a concise set of goals and principles for process change > - publish these for comment and seek IETF debate and rough consensus > >The target is to have a draft of goals and principles by IETF64. > >The next steps will depend on the agreed goals and principles >after this debate. It is very likely that we will need >a process that will generate a consistent set of proposals >and a sequence for implementing them, with target dates. It is >also likely that the first proposal will be a new process for >process change. And it's a given that open discussion and >rough consensus, in accordance with IETF principles, will >be required. > >A non-binding proposal for the next steps is appended to this >message. > >Given the short time until the next IETF, the team will have to >start very soon and work quite intensively. If you would like to >volunteer for the PESCI team or nominate someone to serve on it, >please send me email immediately. I want to create the team within >a week. > > Brian Carpenter > IETF Chair > >N.B. The open discussion list will be pesci-discuss@xxxxxxxx, >but it hasn't yet been created at the time of sending this message. > >----- > >Possible next steps after the PESCI goals and principles are agreed: > > - decide whether to renew the PESCI design team (assumed below) > or use an alternative discussion forum > - consider various process change proposals from any source > - reach a team consensus on a consistent set of proposals > and a sequence for implementing them, with target dates. All > proposals must embed the principle of rough IETF consensus and > must provide an appeal mechanism. > - one of the proposals, likely the first, may be a proposal > for a new process for process change > - post the proposals as Internet-Drafts intended for publication > as BCPs > - seek IETF-wide rough consensus on these drafts > - legal considerations, IASA financial considerations, and > considerations of practicality raised by current or past > Area Directors, WG Chairs and the like will be given special > consideration. If IETF consensus appears to be for a proposal > which is legally, financially or practically unacceptable, > PESCI will need to convince the community to change its mind. > > To enable this, as relevant, the ADs, IAB members and IAOC > members including the IAD will be asked to provide personal > input specifically on the feasibility of implementing the > proposed process changes as they affect their specific roles. > > - forward proposals for approval as BCPs* and acceptance by > the ISOC Board. Until such time as the new process for process > change has been approved, the proposals will be submitted > directly to the General Area Director and the approval body > will be the IESG. However, the IESG members' principal chance > to comment on and influence the proposals is prior to their > forwarding for approval. > > *An alternative would be to use the mechanism described in > RFC 3933, if consensus was weak. In particular, this can be > used to experiment with the practicality of ideas. > >Additional conditions for PESCI's work > > - a subsidiary goal is to end up with a clearly defined > and interlocked set of process documents, rather than > a patchwork of updates to existing documents > > - PESCI will provide an open mailing list where discussion > with the community will be encouraged. It will > issue regular (monthly?) progress reports and generally > operate as transparently as possible. Discussion in IETF > plenary sessions is also expected. > > - nothing in this proposal prevents ongoing operational > improvements within the current process. > > > >_______________________________________________ >IETF-Announce mailing list >IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf