Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:46:47 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Message-ID: <453CE3E7.6070506@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> | Actually, this document doesn't *need* to contain any rationale. | The question is whether the community agrees. It doesn't say the IESG; | it uses the passive tense, and I think evidence for the whole community | finding it troublesome and contentious is to be found in the IETF mailing | list archive. Did you think those were useful and edifying discussions? If the current state is troublesome, a useful step would be to enumerate the problems, and see if there's a way to fix them. Only if it seems that the only acceptable solution is to completely start afresh should that approach be adopted, more frequently some revision of the process will improve things. On the other hand, contentious can be, and in this case probably is, a good thing, and is not a rationale for changing anything. >From time to time, any community needs a way to let off steam, and air all of the grudges. Without that, things just simmer, and end up getting worse and worse - what's more, with more and more people getting disillusioned and simply leaving (especially those who actually do productive work, rather than those who participate just because it is part of their job description). In general, at least as things are now, I would prefer that this current draft simply be dropped, and the current status be retained. To change that, at the very least, all of the issues in Ned Freed's message would need to be dealt with. kre _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf