Brian, > > 1. Apparently you missed the extended, public exchanges about these > > issues, over the last 3 years... > 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. I did not say there had been no activity. I said that we had done nothing about the issues currently under discussion. So i will ask you and everyone else to consider your list with respect to quality, timeliness and relevance. Most of the actions you cite may affect some of the problematic aspects of timeliness... sometimes. But that is all. Here's an exercise you might want to consider: Take the list in the Problems RFC and try to reconcile your list against its. > Tools team ... > Many operational details of document review process ... These two are about better administration. Improving administrative process is fine, but has nothing to do with problems in the "semantics" of the process. It does not affect quality or relevance. And it does not do much about timeliness, in terms of making working groups go faster, reducing inappropriateintentional blocks by ADs, or any of the things that are the meat of IETF work. > and the General Area review team are operational. And since it is carefully targeted for the END of the working group effort, how will this improve quality, timeliness and relevance? > But I, Dave and ICAR blew the early review issue so far.) Since this was an effort directly targeting quality and timeliness -- and especially since early reviews seem to have succeeded at gaining IETF rough consensus as a Good Thing to do -- do you have an theory about the failure to get this going, or better still, how to get it to succeed? > Education team in place to continuously educate leaders and participants And you should note that I cited that elsewhere in the thread. Whether the actual content of the training is likely to have any impact on quality, timeliness and relevance is worth assessing. Yes, it ought to, but how are we going to figure out whether it does? > Regular reviews of RFC Editor and IANA performance in place... > New procedures for liaison handling defined... > Administrative support unit being created by ISOC... And you think these affect core issues of IETF utility to the Internet community? You think that these changes will have any effect at all on better IETF participation or producing timely specifications of better quality and relevance? Please explain how. You might consider using the Problems RFC as a reference guide for directing such an assessment. > 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) Another derailed activity. Another activity that has nothing to do with quality, timeliness or relevance. Go ahead, explain how it does. Explain how current document labeling practises hurt the IETF's utility to the Internet community. Explain how the utility of the IETF to the community will be improved by our fixing this. Brian, we need to distinguish activity from progress. We need to look for the issues that are at the core of the IETF's problems. As I said, in the last 3+ years, we have mostly chosen not to do that. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf