John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Michael Richardson <mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Perhaps we need a
>> 1-minute (physics) video, in the spirit of "A Bill is > Just Bill on
>> Capital Hill" to explain the RFC process.
>>
>> Uhm, I fat fingered the send now button. "I'm just a Bill"
>>
>> The link to go long with this is:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgVKvqTItto
> Would you propose doing that now, after the new Model has settled in
> enough that one can describe the new process (noting, in particular,
> that, in case of disputes, the RSE now has a role (and authority)
> while, in the new model, the RSCE does not unless the whole RSAB gets
> dragged in). Or would you propose to do it twice?
I think that 97% of how an internet-draft becomes an RFC will not be changing
as a result of the RSCE. If we started work on such a 3-minute video today,
it is unlikely we'd finish it prior to the new Model settling in.
I don't think that the details about disputes, etc. would even make into the video.
But, if the powers that would be paying for such a thing wanted to wait a few
months, that would be fine with me.
> And, while a Bill is Just a Bill on Capital Hill, the different
> streams, and, in practice, the different treatment of WG and non-WG and
> Informational and Experimental versus Standards Track documents in the
> IETF Stream would probably take a lot more than a minute :-)
I did rewatched Just a Bill (and the 2014 SNL spoof of it, where Executive
Orders were explained...), and I don't think that it went into any details about
the different ways that bills go through committee, or the twelve different
ways in which the bill can be filabustered. It's not important.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
