On Tue, May 21, 2024, at 07:21, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/20/2024 1:28 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:> The requirement to have two implementations before submitting to IESG> (not some "commitment to implement" before taking over a work) may be> coming from two different reasons:It is not reasonable that anyone should have to guess at the reasons forsuch an onerous and unusual requirement,And, again, it is unprecedented to have an umbrella wg carry such anonerous requirement.
I stand by my comments in an earlier thread on this - let's give this a couple of years and see if it has a chilling effect or not, until then we're largely startling at shadows, calling this onerous and unusual - maybe it is. Maybe it will be fine anyway and raising the bar for "someone has at least tried implementing this brilliant idea" before things get published.
Or maybe you're right and this will scare away lots of great ideas and the working group won't produce anything. No great harm done; it delays publication of things for a few years until we give up on this experiment. Delaying work for years is certainly already business as usual for many ideas at the IETF.
Or maybe the objection is "this will waste a lot of time for people involved". Maybe. Again, that's not uncommon here.
Bron.
--
Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
brong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
