On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 08:48:23AM -0400, John C Klensin allegedly wrote: > Brian, since PESCI is your show, could you reflect and comment > on at least some of this before we hold a BOF and plenary > presentation... a BOF that, were this an effort that was not > driven by the IETF Chair, might well not be considered > coherent enough to get meeting time, much less plenary time? I think the problem here is that we only have a few categories of activities. What do you call a non-plenary activity that is not a WG? All we have is a BOF, but BOF has a lot of connotations. > (2) We try to avoid situations in the IETF in which the same > person occupies so many roles as to be, even potentially, the > sole determiner of what occurs. We tend to use pejorative > terms like "acting as judge and jury" or "conflict of interest" > to describe such situations, although neither term is precisely > correct. But, in the instance of PESCI, we have a single > person who: > > * Has a known and strong position on how the standards track > should evolve etc. I think this is silly. This isn't about power, it's about initiative. We avoid concentrating too much power in one place but if you want something to move forward you had better be glad that someone pushes it, and please note there is a difference between taking the steps necessary to *offer* ideas and *imposing* them. In my opinion this list is a red herring. Otherwise please show me a specific abuse of power. > (3) The "team" is expected to report at the Plenary, partially > on the basis of its BOF meeting, but the BOF ends only one > 50-minute break before the plenary. Not exactly time for the > team to meet, carefully consider the discussion at the BOF, and > prepare a report. Indeed, while it is reasonable to hope for > something else, this would appear to be a setup for the "well, > we just got a lot of input and are thinking about it, stay > tuned" reports that characterized the admin restructuring > process. Declaring guilt before the crime is yet another rhetorical trick. > (4) We still don't have any real idea how the results of PESCI > will be interpreted and processed. Exactly. So calm down and let's not cry doom just yet. On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 12:14:22PM -0400, John C Klensin allegedly wrote: > More important, there have been hints of the work of this effort > being approved by extraordinary means, it is reasonably rare > that a design team gets a BOF and then a significant block of > plenary time to present and discuss the results of that BOF at > the same IETF meeting, etc. Precisely because of the > complications of the leadership roles, other activities of this > effort need to be far more open, public, careful, and generally > sensitive to an open process and IETF community involvement than > usual. I remained silent because I hoped that level of > sensitivity would prevail and that this would be efficient. I > am not feeling very good about that right now. Suppose the IETF Chair wanted to come up with an idea to present. He writes up a draft and then circulates it among a small group for discussion and polishing. He submits it and, being the IETF Chair, gets a time slot for presentation and discussion. The only thing Brian did that you wouldn't do is that he announced beforehand that he was getting a group together. Every IETF Chair has polished process ideas in this way. Way back, when we first tossed around the concept of working groups and areas and the IESG, Phill Gross called a few of his friends to help him work out how to organize things before presenting his ideas. I didn't think PESCI needed to be as organized as it was, but Brian did so *because* he was trying to be sensitive. So I think you have completely the wrong attitude toward this. Everyone has done something like this; Brian is doing it in a more public, process-oriented way than his predecessors. On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 09:50:28AM -0400, John C Klensin allegedly wrote: > --On Wednesday, 26 October, 2005 15:06 +0200 Brian E Carpenter > <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > And I really don't see the value of cross-posting when the > > pesci-discuss list exists for exactly this discussion. > > Much of the discussion has moved to that list. However... > > To the extent to which there is a serious concern that the > operation of PESCI and the pesci-discuss list are an abuse of > process, the IETF list is exactly the right place to have that > particular discussion. All right, but only for that one question (which is a red herring, since there is no "operation" of pesci). Scott _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf