I interpreted the microphone and hand-raising in Montreal that people
were tired of interminable process discussions that consume lots of
resources and in the end accomplish nothing.
One way to ensure that there are no such discussions is to make all such
discussions fruitless and interminable.
Another approach is to try to find ways to make quick and decisive
progress, so that people aren't exhausted and that participation by
those whose primary interest is technical can be ensured.
For this particular case, I don't think there is a scientifically
provable right answer, so a reasonable approach is to pick a number (1
or 2 or 3 steps) that most active participants affected can live with,
and then put processes in place that actually align reality with goals.
For example, I'd be very interested in the aggregate opinions of WG
chairs, since they have to do much of the grunt work to make Draft and
Standard happen.
In cases of inherent uncertainty, the wisdom of the crowd is probably
the best one can do. Thus, create a small number of self-consistent
proposals, and determine a reasonable group of affected individuals, and
then work through a process of elimination in that group, with a simple
vote. I don't really care whether this group is a NONCOM-style selected
random group, all NONCOM-eligible individuals, all ADs + WG chairs or
all recent RFC authors. Currently, we're getting the opinion of those
most inclined to come to a process plenary and to step up to the
microphone, which is not necessarily representative of the affected
community.
Henning
Eliot Lear wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
We could argue this interminably or you could simply grasp the nettle
and align theory with reality.
It was clear in Montreal that there is no community consensus to spend
effort on doing this, so we have closed down this avenue for now.
I'm sorry, Brian, but this answer is truly unacceptable. Reality is
that our 3 step process is not functioning as documented. We thought we
were fixing it in NEWTRK, but you shut down that group. Please tell me
and the rest of the community what path you expect to correct the
error. If you don't have a proposal I will have one of my own.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf