I've picked the following PESCI team members from the
various volunteers and nominees:
Harald Alvestrand
Scott Brim
Elwyn Davies
Adrian Farrel
Michael Richardson
Thanks to everybody who was willing to serve at short notice.
As a reminder, PESCI's immediate tasks are:
- review recent
One thing I was thinking about when reading the call for volunteers for
PESCI:
I'd like to see thoughtful people on this group.
Thoughtful people are likely to see that participatig in the group will be
a painful experience.
They are likely to not volunteer for the job.
I'd like people to
That list has about 25 people on it so far - almost
critical mass, but I do suspect that more than 25 people
have interest in this topic. Maybe next week would be
a good time to switch over.
Brian
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Dear Brian,
Should this thread move to pesci-discuss?
Thanks,
The open mailing list is up.
Post to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe via:
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss
Archive at:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pesci-discuss/current/index.html
It's set up for members-only posting so that spam will get trapped.
Non-member
Dear Brian,
Should this thread move to pesci-discuss?
Thanks,
Spencer
The open mailing list is up.
Post to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe via:
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss
Archive at:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pesci-discuss/current/index.html
It's set
As I've said on the other occasions I've had to see versions
of Brian's proposal,
My completely personal opinion:
. it's reasonable for Brian to appoint
a committee of whomever he wants, by whatever
process he wants, to do whatever he wants
. the outcome of that committee
Ted,
Ted Hardie wrote:
I would like to note that the use of this process was not agreed to by a
consensus of
the IESG.
Indeed not. To be frank I feel that the IETF Chair has to be independent
of the IESG in certain matters, even though the ADs are deeply dependent
on the way the process is
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, IETF Chair wrote:
This note describes a method of starting the next phase of IETF
IETF process change, possibly including updating the change process
itself.
FWIW, I think this approach makes sense.
In all process WGs (or BOFs) I have participated (ipr, newtrk, icar,
Thanks to John for his long and considered note. Two short responses inline
before
I have to sign off for the weekend:
At 12:36 AM -0400 9/17/05, John C Klensin wrote:
Ted,
I finding myself agreeing with you in many ways, but probably
for different reasons. I'm trying to better formulate the
I understand the concerns you express. What surprises me with the
IETF is the lack of methodology (at least for a French brain). This
seems to fit the model since it works: it then should be preserved,
at least in part. This may also be one of the systemic root of the
problem. Brian introduces
I would like to note that the use of this process was not agreed to by a
consensus of
the IESG.
Brian sent early versions of this proposal to the IESG, and it received
considerable pushback, some of it from me. I strongly encouraged
Brian to use a design team to draft a charter for a tightly
From: Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would like to note that the use of this process was not agreed to by a
consensus of
the IESG.
Brian sent early versions of this proposal to the IESG, and it received
considerable pushback, some of it from me. I strongly encouraged
Brian to use a design
At 1:39 PM -0500 9/16/05, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
While it seems plausible that we could use the same mechanism for protocol
design and for process evolution, my understanding of the Problem working
group's efforts and the subsequent newtrk/icar/proto/mpowr (and yes, there
were others) efforts
Groups like NomCom and IPR have taken on tasks and done them, with community
discussion of their charters and with community discussion as their documents
went through the process. They are process change groups, and they work.
Ted,
Groups like nomcom and ipr have not had a multi-year
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Ted Hardie wrote:
At 1:39 PM -0500 9/16/05, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
While it seems plausible that we could use the same mechanism
for protocol design and for process evolution, my understanding
of the Problem working group's efforts and the subsequent
At 2:28 PM -0700 9/16/05, Dave Crocker wrote:
And since all other public development efforts for process change have frankly
fallen flat, as Brian has cited, what is your basis for believing that a
working group charter will somehow make yet-another public process more
effective at developing
Two observations:
1) Having been an active participant in the Nomcom working group, it is
amaxing it actually worked. The process took an absurdly long time to
converge on a very small set of changes. Having tried to drive ICAR, which
many people said was important, I again conclude that WGs
Dear Ted,
As I said at the beginning of this thread, I believe using PESCI to scope
the
work and develop support for is fine. I'm deeply concerned, however,
about it
doing the development work itself, as a process in which selected
volunteers replace
the public work of those who will use
Ted,
I finding myself agreeing with you in many ways, but probably
for different reasons. I'm trying to better formulate the
differences instead of (or at least before) posting something
incoherent, but, in the meantime...
--On Friday, 16 September, 2005 16:45 -0700 Ted Hardie
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
19 matches
Mail list logo
