Subject: design team membership

From: Steve Bellovin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:51:21 -0400

Per the provisions of the IESG policy on design teams (see 
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/Design-Teams.txt), here are the 
members of the IPR design team:

Harald Alvestrand
Scott Bradner
Jeff Schiller
Randy Bush
Jorge Contreras
Rob Austein (ex officio)
Steve Bellovin (ex officio)

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 00:57:57 -0500

>members of the IPR design team:

That document says:

     This does not apply to individual efforts that start
     and exist outside any WG.

Since you do not have a chartered working group, this is an 
individual effort and the policy does not apply.

>Steve Bellovin (ex officio)

So except for one of the ex officio chairs and the attorney from the 
firm that advises the IETF, everyone else on "the design team" is 
also on the IESG? Was there insufficient interest from other members 
of the IETF on this apparently important topic and therefore a 
broader spectrum of participants could not be found?

Patiently trying to figure out what exactly is going on here,
pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <mailto:[email-masked]>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 07:24:00 -0700

> Patiently trying to figure out what exactly is going on here,

excessive openness, a vile plot, sounds of black helicpters are
heard in the background :-)

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 11:28:44 -0400

> heard in the background :-)

You only have to be afraid of the silent black helicopters.

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 11:19:18 -0500

On 6/18/02 at 7:24 AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:

>excessive openness

An announcement, before the working group is even chartered, that the 
first order of business is to send a small set of IESG members off to 
work behind closed doors does not strike me as *excessive* openness.

If you read the rest of the cited document, you will notice:

- Design teams are supposed to "develop a proposal to solve a 
particular problem." (Which problem are you all solving?)
- Design teams are supposed to "have a clear terse mission statement 
that must be posted on the working group mailing list."
- The "Working Group decides to form a design team". You don't even 
have a WG yet.

Perhaps the content of that document should indicates that the 
formation of a design team is a little premature?

pr

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 13:45:26 -0400

> work behind closed doors does not strike me as *excessive* openness.

Seems to me that before any WG is chartered that there is generally
a small number of people collaborating in private to try to figure
out what is needed.  You have to start somewhere, and starting in a
large room filled with skeptical people is a sure-fire way to waste
everyone's time and discourage anyone else from tackling the problem.

The rules are fairly clear, and reasonable: anybody can come up 
with an idea, but it takes a rough consensus of the community 
to approve it.  And IESG folks are specifically allowed to 
participate in the normal workings of IETF, including introducing
new proposals.

So I don't see any inherent problem with some folks who happen to be
on IESG coming up with a proposal for a WG, or a problem definition, 
or a proposed solution, or whatever - just as long as those folks 
don't try to dictate the outcome.  And such efforts seem particularly 
reasonable when the WG is trying to address issues for which IESG is 
the most likely group to notice the extent of the problem.

Keith