Brian,
thanks for your comments!
--On torsdag, oktober 28, 2004 11:21:12 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Harald,
I think the consensus you have asserted is indeed the rough consensus of those who have spoken up.
I would make three observations:
1. We are attempting to change part of the IETF's "social contract" here. I'm glad to see the IAB and IESG showing leadership, but it is unusually important to involve the whole community.
It is. That is why we have kept the discussion on the largest relevant list we could find, made a consensus call on the direction, and will do Last Calls on the final document or documents.
I do sympathize somewhat with the people who just want "someone to take care of this" and choose not to comment in detail on the document - we have to make sure they know what's going on, but we cannot force anyone to actively participate in the process. Like most IETF processes, it becomes much easier to participate after reading the documents - but that IS a significant investment of time.
2. I would like to see us stick as closely as possible to the letter and spirit of RFC 2026, even if we don't have process rules that cover exactly what we are doing. Specifically, I'd like to see normal usage of the I-D mechanism for developing successive versions of the necessary documents. I don't consider a web site that I have to remember to look at to be a satisfactory alternative.
For the documents that are to become RFCs, I most heartily agree.
Keeping the community informed of what we are doing in detail is slightly different - this is not developing a document, it's keeping our notebook in a public place.
3. Some issues were raised in the recent "Shuffle those deck chairs" and "Sunshine law" threads that are outside the scope of administrative restructuring, but they deserve attention in the reasonably near future. But let's keep them separate.
Agreed.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf