On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Eliot Lear wrote: > Numerous proposals were made within the working group. The ISD proposal > seemed to be the one that had the most support. However, this proposal > ran into stiff opposition within the IESG and was effectively killed. > We can argue until the cows come home as to whether or not the ISD > proposal was ready for prime time. However, the end result was that we > had a working group chartered to do a specific task, do the task, and > then have the work rejected. >From my perspective as an outsider, I have to say that I was extremely disappointed that the WG spent the bulk of its time on "the creation of a new series of short IESG-approved IETF documents to describe and define IETF technology standards" rather than concentrating on redefining the standards track. > What I would like to know is what we could have done to prevent this > from happening. Was the newtrk charter not sufficiently narrow to > accomplish a task for which there was community consensus? Having just re-read the charter, I would have to say so. I think we would have been better served if the WG had been given the much less ambitious task of producing an update of RFC 2026 that describes what we actually do. > Eventually, as I wrote in a previous note, we must circle back and > actually fix the standards process to reflect reality. But how that is > to be done remains to me an open question. Well, one possibility might be to charter a design team or WG to do just that -- i.e., to take the term "Best Current Practice" at face value and produce of a standards process BCP that actually documents current practice. //cmh _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf