--On Monday, 12 June, 2006 12:20 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
>>> The real underlying problem of course is the the
>>> multi-stage standards process is just a relic from another
>>> time, and makes no sense at all in the current environment.
>>> Experiments in fine tuning the process are nothing but a
>>> distraction.
>>
>> For the record, I completely agree with the above sentiments
>> (and have so stated on the newtrk mailing list).
>
> I'd like to ask people who *don't* agree with the above
> sentiments
> (i.e. who support this experimental process change) to say so,
> before
> the Last Call ends in two days. (Obviously, people who *do*
> agree are welcome
> to say so too, but a problem with Last Calls is that it's very
> hard to
> judge whether silence means consent.)
FWIW, I still think the approach in the draft is a good idea
given that...
(1) We have not been able to get consensus eliminating a
multistep standard process. For reasons explained elsewhere, I
personally consider that eliminating that process would be a bad
idea, but that is another discussion. The present reality is
that we don't have that consensus and that blocking incremental
improvements within it is a strange form of "see if we can make
things worse so as to build momentum for a more basic change".
I don't believe in that style of doing things.
(2) We have had repeated claims that the downref issue is a
major cause of perceived IETF slowness in getting documents out
and, especially, of getting documents to advanced maturity
level. I think that validating (or invalidating) those claims
would be helpful as a goal in itself. If it results in a
significant number of documents being advanced, that would be a
good thing. If it results in few or no documents being
advanced, then we know that particular argument is not a
significant part of the picture, and that would, itself, be
useful.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf