Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > What it requires is that people who want all their pet changes to go > into a draft to simply show some discipline and accept that not > everything will be fixed at once. Current practice is a ONE STEP > process that is NOT documented. Your and others' obstruction brings us > to a place where nothing moves forward and we are left in an ossified > state. Rough consensus and running code. Well running code requires > that we document what works. Rough consensus requires that people come > to agreements, likely through compromises. Right now we have neither. Let me just observe that the above sort of "you're with us or against us" language is deeply poisoning to making progress on this overall topic. It's divisive, and it is a cheap substitute for real discussion of substance/issues. I can tell you that I personally am very interested/concerned about process improvements. But since I was once part of the "big bad self-serving IESG", who are regularly blamed by some for all the failures to make progress here, I have been loath to get involved. I know that it is pretty much inevitable that I will be tarred with the same brush at some point. When I ask myself "do I really want to deal with this?", the answer so far has been "no, I have plenty of other things I'd rather do." That does not mean I don't care deeply about the topic, however. Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf