Subject: [Pesci-discuss] Next Steps: Who performs them?

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 10:06:48 -0500

This is my individual opinion.

I generally agree with the next steps proposed in the draft.  I'd like
to formulate them differently for discussion though.  It seems like we're doing three things:

1) Agree to principles.  Brian and Harald have been discussing how to
   categorize these and what categories they fit into recently.
   Presumably if the community generally agrees with the principles in
   this draft we are reasonably close to being done here.

2) Develop a new process change process based on these principles.

3) Run some process changes through the new process or possibly
    through the old process.  The IETF chair role was proposed as a
    good first candidate.

I agree these are fine next steps.  

I do not believe it would be appropriate for the same team to conduct
all three steps.  In fact I strongly believe you need a different team
to conduct each step.

I think it is important for the process change team to be very neutral
and not to have an agenda.  They are focusing on issues of fairness,
efficiency and openness.  I also believe they should be focusing on a
useful process for process change.  However we as a community need to
trust that the process is not being engineered to solve any particular
process problem and especially that it is not designed to adopt a
particular solution.  I believe that by choosing to propose a set of
principles for the eventual process, the pesci team has disqualified
itself from this role.  I also believe it would be inappropriate for
the process change team to be proposing specific changes to the
process.

I think it is reasonable for the first and second tasks to be
conducted by a team called by the IETF chairs.  The first task because
presumably the principles have sufficient community agreement that
they are not controversial and the second because it seems like the
only way to get progress.  However the conflict of interest seems too
strong if Brian is calling special design teams to focus on specific
solutions or specific proposals.  For one thing, we don't need Brian
to get involved in order to come up with process change proposals: Ted
Hardie, John Klensin, Dave Crocker,and many others have all made
proposals.  We don't need leadership from the chair in order to find
proposals to consider.  Secondly, the proposals are likely to be
controversial; a team called up by the chair would inherently get
unfair access to plenary time, unfair scheduling, etc.

So, I propose that:

1) The pesci team finish up its document proposing principles and next
   steps.  The team get community consensus and conclude.

2) Brian call another design team to design the process change
   process.  It may involve some of the same individuals, but should
   be a different team with a different focus.

3)  Once we have a process change proposal  we get consensus and then
    apply the new process change process to existing and future
    proposals.

4) If Brian feels that the chair role conflict needs attention before
    the process change team concludes, then we can handle that through
    the existing process.  Honestly, I think that Brian could just
    propose a BCP as an individual draft.  If he really needs a design
    team, then call one.  If that issue happens to need the same
    members as the current pesci team, that would be OK too.

--Sam

_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 21:16:42 +0100

Sam,

I don't have any big problems with the series of steps and the series of 
teams you outline.
I do have, however, one BIG problem with one of your justifications for it:

> unfair access to plenary time, unfair scheduling, etc.

If you see the "specific proposal" team as a competitor in a field of 
teams, each intent on pushing its own proposal, then your second point is 
correct.
However, I believe the situation is different: We will have the need for a 
*coheret* proposal, done by someone who's willing to take input, evaluate 
it fairly, and come up with something that hangs together.

That "synthesis team" (and I believe there can be only one at any given 
time) will have to get the resources it needs in terms of plenary time, 
scheduling and so on.

That team has to be called. And I think that on the list of first tasks of 
the process reform team is to make a sensible proposal on who calls them.

When all's said and done, we might still be unable to come up with 
something that makes more sense than "Brian does it". If so - I prefer that 
solution to "no change".

                            Harald

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 18:17:25 -0500

>>>>> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:

    Harald> If you see the "specific proposal" team as a competitor in
    Harald> a field of teams, each intent on pushing its own proposal,
    Harald> then your second point is correct.  However, I believe the
    Harald> situation is different: We will have the need for a
    Harald> *coheret* proposal, done by someone who's willing to take
    Harald> input, evaluate it fairly, and come up with something that
    Harald> hangs together.

    Harald> That "synthesis team" (and I believe there can be only one
    Harald> at any given time) will have to get the resources it needs
    Harald> in terms of plenary time, scheduling and so on.

The second team--the one designing the process change proposal could
in fact propose such a model.  If they did, and if the community
bought into it, I'd completely agree with you.  I certainly think this
is worth considering as an option; I'll admit that my wording was
focused on the status quo than on all possible outputs of the process
change process team.

if you believe that one team coming up with a synthesis process is a
principle, you can propose that as part of the pesci output.  I'll
need to think for a while about whether I think that's really a
principle.

But the key thing is that it would be community agreement to the need
for the synthesis team that made the synthesis team a reasonable
singleton team to exist.  Until that community agreement happens
giving the synthesis team preferencial treatment is inappropriate.

--Sam

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 01:53:46 +0100

> need to think for a while about whether I think that's really a

I don't think it's a principle. But neither do I think the inverse (that 
there should be more than one) is a principle.

It's just that I think only one of them is workable.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 16:09:11 -0500

>>>>> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:

    Harald> --On tirsdag, november 01, 2005 18:17:25 -0500 Sam Hartman
    Harald> <[email-masked]> wrote:

    >> if you believe that one team coming up with a synthesis process
    >> is a principle, you can propose that as part of the pesci
    >> output.  I'll need to think for a while about whether I think
    >> that's really a principle.
    >> 

    Harald> I don't think it's a principle. But neither do I think the
    Harald> inverse (that there should be more than one) is a
    Harald> principle.

I've been thinking more about this.  I don't think a synthesis team is
a principle, but I do think unity/coherence of resulting process is a
principle.

I think something like it is  stated already; I need to reread the
draft before the bof.