Subject: [Pesci-discuss] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-davies-pesci-next-steps-00.txt

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 09:20:51 +0100

Two personal comments:

1. The draft contains a lie :-)

>    The
>    membership of the design team is listed in the Acknowledgements and
>    the original announcement of PESCI is given as an Appendix.  

The Appendix isn't there; it's in draft-davies-pesci-initial-considerations

2. Personally I'm not 100% convinced that IESG itself is really the
first target for the proposed approach. The IESG is central to any
process change, of course - but not necessarily the main initial target.

I will write more about my own choice of targets, and this will come
up in the General Area open meeting in Dallas.

    Brian

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

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 17:45:51 +0200 (EET)

A couple of comments:

2.1.  Change Process Proposal
    The teams should function with an open discussion list, in the same
    way that the PESCI team has done.  The output of each team should be
    tested against the IETF consensus in the normal fashion; we believe
    that if there is clear IETF consensus that the proposal makes sense,
    the IESG (and the ISOC Board of Trustees) will respect that consensus
    and approve of it.

==> the consensus judged by _whom_?  Did you mean rough consensus, 
btw?

3.  Immediate Tasks for the Change Process
    This review should include:
.... (9 bullets of stuff...)

==> this seems a very extensive task, with several separable pieces. 
The list seems to be written in such a way that I got the impression 
the "first team" should do all of the above.  This doesn't seem 
productive at all.

Is this (again) the case of, "by the way, could you please rewrite 
RFC2026 and all our process docs while you're at it.. THANKS!" ?

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:51:55 +0100

Pekka Savola wrote:
> ==> the consensus judged by _whom_?  Did you mean rough consensus, btw?

I understood that to mean a 4 week IETF last call and IESG approval. Do you
we need a new mechanism?

> ==> this seems a very extensive task, with several separable pieces. The 
> list seems to be written in such a way that I got the impression the 
> "first team" should do all of the above.  This doesn't seem productive 
> at all.

I had thought of more parallelism than that, myself.

> RFC2026 and all our process docs while you're at it.. THANKS!" ?

Not *all*, but I think personally there are several that need
revising this year - I will talk about that in the GenArea meeting.

    Brian

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 21:18:31 +0200 (EET)

> I understood that to mean a 4 week IETF last call and IESG approval. Do you

You mean an IESG approval without a document ballot?  (Probably not, 
but I'm having trouble with the words "respect that consensus".)

If yes, who (from the IESG) will determine whether there is IETF 
consensus (consider that there may be mixed response from the IETF, so 
someone will need to evaluate which concerns need to be addressed)?

If no, this seems like the normal procedure (the previous comment 
still holds though) -- but still open to personal Discuss positions.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 02:48:03 +0100

Pekka Savola wrote:
> You mean an IESG approval without a document ballot?  (Probably not, but 
> I'm having trouble with the words "respect that consensus".)

No, there's always a ballot. The IESG is always supposed to respect
consensus...

> If no, this seems like the normal procedure (the previous comment still 
> holds though) -- but still open to personal Discuss positions.

And why would it be otherwise?

(OTOH the discuss-criteria document is written for technical documents.
We probably need to write up the criteria for DISCUSSes on process
documents. That's my insight of the day!)

     Brian