Re: Facts, please, not handwaving [Re: Its about mandate RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I interpreted the microphone and hand-raising in Montreal that people were tired of interminable process discussions that consume lots of resources and in the end accomplish nothing.

One way to ensure that there are no such discussions is to make all such discussions fruitless and interminable.

Another approach is to try to find ways to make quick and decisive progress, so that people aren't exhausted and that participation by those whose primary interest is technical can be ensured.

For this particular case, I don't think there is a scientifically provable right answer, so a reasonable approach is to pick a number (1 or 2 or 3 steps) that most active participants affected can live with, and then put processes in place that actually align reality with goals. For example, I'd be very interested in the aggregate opinions of WG chairs, since they have to do much of the grunt work to make Draft and Standard happen.

In cases of inherent uncertainty, the wisdom of the crowd is probably the best one can do. Thus, create a small number of self-consistent proposals, and determine a reasonable group of affected individuals, and then work through a process of elimination in that group, with a simple vote. I don't really care whether this group is a NONCOM-style selected random group, all NONCOM-eligible individuals, all ADs + WG chairs or all recent RFC authors. Currently, we're getting the opinion of those most inclined to come to a process plenary and to step up to the microphone, which is not necessarily representative of the affected community.

Henning

Eliot Lear wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
We could argue this interminably or you could simply grasp the nettle
and align theory with reality.
It was clear in Montreal that there is no community consensus to spend
effort on doing this, so we have closed down this avenue for now.

I'm sorry, Brian, but this answer is truly unacceptable.  Reality is
that our 3 step process is not functioning as documented.  We thought we
were fixing it in NEWTRK, but you shut down that group.  Please tell me
and the rest of the community what path you expect to correct the
error.  If you don't have a proposal I will have one of my own.

Eliot

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]