I would like to support Brian's point that we have actually done quite a lot in recent years to improve the IETF. Not saying that we shouldn't do more -- we really need to -- but at least from my perspective there has been a significant, observable change for the better.
--Jari
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote: ...
1. Apparently you missed the extended, public exchanges about these issues, over the last 3 years. I am not suggesting anything new or different, merely observing that we have done not one thing to attend to them.
That's pretty unfair to my predecessor and his colleagues.
Here's a quick list of things that have been done. It's written in somewhat high
level terms, but there is substance behind each of these items. It doesn't
mean that we're done or that we're complacent, but accusing ourselves of
inaction is plain wrong.
Tools team in place to specify and help provide or enhance various efficiency tools
Many operational details of document review process have been and will be improved
(in other words, the ID tracker is being constantly improved; the PROTO
shepherding system and the General Area review team are operational.
But I, Dave and ICAR blew the early review issue so far.)
Education team in place to continuously educate leaders and participants
Regular reviews of RFC Editor and IANA performance in place
New procedures for liaison handling defined
Administrative support unit being created by ISOC (the IAOC is up and running and the IAD hiring process is moving right along)
Proposals for upgrading/streamlining standards track in discussion (i.e. newtrk and specifically the ISD proposal, but there's certainly more to do in newtrk)
Brian
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf