>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes:
John> (2) If they are successful, efforts like this also generate
John> specific proposals for change. But we have had many
John> specific proposals for change in the time since the work
John> that led to RFC 3774 was concluded. In an attempt to
John> stimulate some focused discussion, I have written several of
John> them. I am, of course, not the only one. To take a handy
John> current example, there is at least one plausible proposal on
John> the table in the mailing list management area
John> (draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-01): it may need
John> tuning, but it went through Last Call and, the last I heard,
John> we deal with documents that have gotten through Last Call by
John> processing them, not by declaring them "in discussion" and
John> then holding [mini]BOFs that might subsume them. With the
John> exception of RFC 3933 and possibly that mailing list draft,
John> the proposals for substantive changes have pretty much
John> vanished without a trace, unable to even generate serious
John> discussion (except, in some cases, complaints from selected
John> present or past IESG members about the ways in which they
John> would change their roles).
In Brian's defense my draft's current delays are entirely on my
shoulders. My day job ended up taking up a lot of time post IETF 65;
then I had to catch up on technical IESg work; I've mostly done that.
I have not had a chance to address last call comments.
I actually see Brian's proposal to have a mini-bof on mailing lists as
entirely complimentary to my draft. My goal was to run an experiment
to give the community flexibility while working through what the real
requirements and solutions are. If Brian can pull that effort
together that would be great.
Now, I don't know what will happen when I try to address those last
call comments and I don't know what will happen when you formally put
forward some of your proposals as RFC 3933 experiments. If those
processes fail, and if RFC 3933 ends up being useless in practice,
I'll join you in arguing that I don't see a point. As I said at IETf
65, RFC 3933 is my last hope for forward progress on process issues.
If we cannot make even that work, things are grim; I'll go ignore the
process issues completely until I find that's no longer an option.
Perhaps someone else will find a solution. Perhaps the problems don't
need to be solved; we are getting a lot of technical work done,
efficiency and openness continue to improve; I at least am (other than
a few acute problems) happy with the IETF. Or perhaps Dave is right
and we aren't producing timely relevant output and we'll eventually
all move on.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf