Subject: RE: [Pesci-discuss] Growing concerns about PESCI

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:20:24 +0200

speaking as an individual participant.

W.r.t.
> Is PESCI characterizing the current process or inventing a new
> one?  Is it about principles for the IETF or principles for
> process change?

My understanding is that the PESCI effort is to come up with
a proposal for the IETF on "how to deal/handle process changes".

In other words, today all of this is done via BCPs that go through
IESG for approval. A problem is that the IESG becomes the bottleneck,
but also that IESG may be reluctant to change when the change impacts
the IESG functions/functioning itself. Another problem I see is that
the IESG (who is supposed to steer and process the IETF technical
(standardization) work) often gets interrupted to deal with process
cgange proposals.

So my hope would be that PESCI can propose a new "process for process
and/or organizational change(s)" that will take the IESG out of the
loop, but would have mechanisms for gauging IETF consensus on any
future changes similar to what we have today. 

Once the PESCI effort comes up with such a proposal, we (IETF) can
evaluate it and probably approve it as a BCP, just following our
current process (i.e. a sponsoring AD and go through IESG etc).

Once that new BCP gets approved, we can leave the IESG out of the
critical path and new proposals for process or organization changes 
can then be handled via that new mechanism.

So in that sense, I agree with you John that a lot of the discussion
on the PESCI mailing list is so to speak "not-in-scope" for the
task that the PESCI team was started (at least as I understood it).

Bert

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