Sam Hartman wrote: > So, I'm close to concluding that we don't have mechanisms > for getting consensus on larger process changes I share your sentiment on this. I wonder if part of the reason is we often resort to a modus operandi of "let a thousand flowers bloom" and "let the market decide" for contentious issues. While that *might* work for a technology spec, it clearly is not a workable means of progressing process change proposals. I regret I don't have a solution to offer here, but I have hope that further dialogue around your feelings and my observations (herein) might lead to some proposals. Regards, Ed Juskevicius -----Original Message----- From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 1:43 PM To: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Clarification of my comment on giving up on process issues Hi. I gave a presentation at genarea today and commented that I strongly felt like giving up on any participation in process change efforts as a lost cause. I want to explain what is frustrating me and to explain what is not frustrating me. Several people said that I need to get more review of my draft. That's reasonable and I'll work on that. I admit significant frustration that concerns about lack of review were not raised during last call. However that's par for the course; last call comments including recommendations for more review come in up to the point that a document is approved and we're all used to that. Also, if people believed that the basic approach I'm taking--delegating power to the IESG--was wrong, that would be fine. People disagree with each other all the time. What I am frustrated by is that it looks like we're headed for the same sort of deadlock that we've had with all the process proposals. I suspect that I can get my draft published and that it will not be too difficult to do so. However I don't think we're building the sort of community consensus behind RFC 3933 as an approach to breaking process reform deadlock that it will actually be useful to us. What happens when John submits his nomcom proposal as an RFC 3933 experiment? Would there be any plausable way he could move forward on that proposal using RFC 3933? If the answer is that RFC 3933 is not the solution, then what is? We did not have consensus behind pesci at IETF 64.We've not had consensus behind what process priorities were appropriate in other cases. So, I'm close to concluding that we don't have mechanisms for getting consensus on larger process changes and that perhaps the right approach is to just move on with our existing processes. They mostly work after all. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf