Subject: Poll: Restructuring questions

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:20:37 +0200

The discussion on IETF restructuring has had a few strong voices, some 
different opinions, and a lot of listeners.

My talks with people have convinced me that many of those who have said 
nothing are indeed following the debate - some of them have opinions on 
what to do, some think that others are better positioned to decide than 
they are, and some thinkm other things.

So we are trying another mechanism to get your input.
There's a poll up at 
<http://tools.ietf.org/poll/admin_scenario_alternatives/> that gives you a 
chance to say that you're listening - and IF you have an opinion on the 
current alternative scenarios, to state it.

If you do not speak up (by either choosing or by telling us different) then 
the IESG/IAB have no idea how to read that silence. So please do respond, 
and if you do not have an opinion or have not yet had the time/energy to 
evaluate, please at least show us that you saw this poll request, by 
answering the first question.

So please - take a look, and tell us that you're listening.

<http://tools.ietf.org/poll/admin_scenario_alternatives/>

Thank you!

                   Harald, for the IESG and IAB

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:19:04 -0400

> <http://tools.ietf.org/poll/admin_scenario_alternatives/>

I think the poll was a good idea, I hope lots of people take it.  I 
know I had been reading and generally agreeing with some of the folks 
and the poll is a good forcing function for response.

Since my comments are slightly longer then short:

I agree with those who are arguing for Scenario 0 and agree with most 
of the arguments, about complexity and timing.  I also believe that a 
version of C remains a possibility in the future should scenario 0 not 
work.  Though I think it could.

I also agree with those who argue that we need an accurate job 
description for the IAD, and need it soon.  I think the startup process 
seems reasonable.  the timing is challenging, but I believe it could be 
done with lots of hard work and lots of good will.

I also agree that 2 IAOC members should be selected by Nomcom - I have 
argued before why I consider then qualified to chose.  I would have 
argued for more, since I believe that 1/2 of the IAOC should be nomcom 
selected.  However, since I agree with those who argue that the IETF 
chair and the IAB chair should be voting members of the IAOC,  that 
would mean that 4 of the participants were chosen by a Nomcom process, 
and that seems a good enough balance.

a.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:25:45 -0700 (PDT)

Since you've gone through the trouble of creating a web page, it would be
really nice to have links to all the relevant restructuring docs, existing
procedures and so on. I was looking for just such a link to point my
readers to so that they could join or follow these discussion, but I gave
up and thought "we'll cover it when it's a done deal."

But if you could do, you have until Monday for the next issue :-) All I
really need is a link to a page which says "coming soon" at this stage.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Academic Research and Technology Initiatives, Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:36:34 -0400

Harald,

When I try to invoke this URL, I get a very impressive display
that says

	"Python 2.3.4: /usr/bin/python
	Fri Sep 24 21:32:36 2004
	
	A problem occurred in a Python script. Here is the
	sequence of function calls leading up to the error, in
	the order they occurred."

followed by a fairly impressive traceback and then

	IndentationError: expected an indented block (line 108)
	      args = ('expected an indented block', (None, 108,
	8, ' if formentry:\n'))
	      filename = None
	      lineno = 108
	      msg = 'expected an indented block'
	      offset = 8
	      print_file_and_line = None
	      text = ' if formentry:\n'

It doesn't make it easy to figure out the questions, much less
supply answers :-(

     john

--On Friday, 24 September, 2004 17:20 +0200 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The discussion on IETF restructuring has had a few strong
> voices, some different opinions, and a lot of listeners.
> 
> My talks with people have convinced me that many of those who
> have said nothing are indeed following the debate - some of
> them have opinions on what to do, some think that others are
> better positioned to decide than they are, and some thinkm
> other things.
> 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/poll/admin_scenario_alternatives/> that
> gives you a chance to say that you're listening - and IF you
> have an opinion on the current alternative scenarios, to state
> it.
> 
> If you do not speak up (by either choosing or by telling us
> different) then the IESG/IAB have no idea how to read that
> silence. So please do respond, and if you do not have an
> opinion or have not yet had the time/energy to evaluate,
> please at least show us that you saw this poll request, by

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:57:57 +0200

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
[snip]
> There's a poll up at 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/poll/admin_scenario_alternatives/> that gives you 
> a chance to say that you're listening - and IF you have an opinion on 
> the current alternative scenarios, to state it.
[snip]

To those who have answered the poll, but could not see the 
current tally due to a script error:  The tally script has 
now been updated and will show you the running tally correctly.
No data has been lost, so if you have answered the poll, your
data is reflected in the tally.

My apologies for the bad service.

	Henrik