While I agree with that, I suggest that we are in something of a
conundrum. Right now, 2026 is badly out of date in a number of
areas. It reflects procedures and modes that we no longer
follow, only a fraction of which are addressed by Eliot's draft.
There is general community understanding and acceptance that we
are operating, not by the letter of 2026, but by the combination
of 2026 and a certain amount of, largely undocumented, oral
tradition (I expect to hear from the usual suspects on that
assertion, but it is the way it is). To make things worse, we
have some BCPs that effectively amend 2026 but that are not
referenced in Eliot's draft -- I've pointed out some of them to
him, which I assume will be fixed, but may have missed others.
If that's indeed the case, the first order of business needs to be to document
current practice. I see no chance of making forward progress on actual changes
without first having a consensus as to what our current state is.
I was just about to reply to John's message saying exactly the same
thing. My belief is that any attempt to revise 2026 is likely to
introduce a kind of second-system effect - there is so much pent-up
demand for changes to our process that everyone has his own idea about
how to do it. The only way we have any hope of getting real consensus
on a path forward is to first get a shared understanding of where we are
now.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf